Speaker’s Statement

Lindsay Hoyle: Before I start questions, may I wish all Members and their families the best for Christmas and a peaceful new year? I thank all staff within the House of Commons—those in security, catering, Clerks, you name it—for all they do. It is appreciated. It has been another hard year, and I just hope we can have a peaceful world, peace in the middle east, and certainly peace in Europe.

Oral
Answers to
Questions

Treasury

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—

Landfill Tax Relief: Local Authorities

Cat Smith: If he will make an assessment of the potential merits of introducing landfill tax relief for local authorities who are responsible for hazardous waste after companies go into liquidation.

Gareth Davies: A very merry Christmas to you and your staff, Mr Speaker. Landfill tax provides an economic incentive to manage waste more sustainably, which has contributed to a 90% reduction in local authority waste sent to landfill in England since 2000. However, it was not intended to act as a barrier to the remediation and redevelopment of contaminated land. In the autumn statement the Government announced the land remediation pathfinder fund, which will provide £78 million of targeted support to local and mayoral authorities.

Cat Smith: Happy Christmas, Mr Speaker. For two weeks now the old Supa Skips site in Lancaster has been burning, and it looks as if Lancaster City Council will be left to pick up the tab for the clean-up. Some of that money has to be spent on landfill tax. Will the Minister meet me and Lancaster City Council to discuss what options are open to my local council to ensure that local ratepayers are not left footing the bill for rogue companies that walk away from sites, such as Supa Skips?

Gareth Davies: As I mentioned in my previous answer, the landfill tax has been hugely successful but it was never intended to act as a barrier to remediation. The fund that was announced in the autumn statement will be open for bids in early 2024, and I encourage the hon. Lady’s local authority to apply through the normal way. Secondly, there is an ongoing review into the landfill tax, and reform of current exemptions are within scope of that review. Our belief is that the fund may offer more targeted support in the way that she desires.

Anglesey Freeport: North Wales Economy

Virginia Crosbie: What recent assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of Anglesey freeport on the economy in North Wales.

Jeremy Hunt: Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker. Today is the funeral of former Chancellor Lord Darling, and if I may, I will make some comments about that in my topicals statement. Anglesey freeport will be a national and international hub for trade, innovation and commerce, regenerating communities by attracting new business, and spreading jobs, investment and opportunity.

Virginia Crosbie: Nadolig llawen pawb. I was delighted that the Chancellor extended freeport tax reliefs in England in his autumn statement. Does he agree that if those extensions are realised in Wales, it will give companies the confidence to invest and help deliver the £1 billion investment, and thousands of jobs forecast for our Anglesey freeport? Will he join me in thanking all those at the Isle of Anglesey County Council and Stena Line who worked so hard recently to submit the outline business case?

Jeremy Hunt: I am happy to join my hon. Friend in thanking all those involved in promoting the Anglesey freeport, which we think may create 5,500 jobs. We are working closely with the Welsh Government to agree on how the 10-year window to claim reliefs can be extended across freeports in Wales. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has done more than anyone to put Ynys Môn on the map.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call Jim Shannon—oh, sorry, Andrew Bridgen.

Andrew Bridgen: Thank you very much for doing the funnies, Mr Speaker.
Freeports can certainly be a catalyst of economic growth and prosperity in north Wales and the east midlands, but they must be in the right place. Putting a freeport in North West Leicestershire, which already enjoys some of the highest economic growth in the country, has low unemployment, and is capable of filling its industrial sites without incentives, makes little sense. Will the Chancellor agree to meet me to discuss better alternatives for the east midlands than the Diseworth freeport site?

Jeremy Hunt: I would be happy to ask one of my colleagues to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss why freeports are not appropriate in his part of Leicestershire.

Farm Budgets 2024-25: Scotland

Alistair Carmichael: What recent discussions he has had with his Scottish counterpart on farm budgets for the financial year 2024-25.

Laura Trott: A very merry Christmas, Mr Speaker. The Government guarantee to maintain the £2.4 billion annual budget for farmers across the UK for every year of this Parliament.  As agriculture is devolved, it is ultimately for the Scottish Government to decide how to allocate that money to farming in Scotland.

Alistair Carmichael: The Minister will be aware of the frustration that is felt by many farmers and crofters in Scotland that the £33 million that was given to the Scottish Government for a specific purpose as part of the Bew review has been deferred hitherto. What will she do in future to ensure that where money is given for the express purpose of supporting Scottish agriculture, it is in fact used for that purpose?

Laura Trott: The right hon. Member raises an excellent question. The SNP Government are yet to clarify when this ringfenced money will be returned. I hope they will do so this afternoon at the Budget.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Drew Hendry: May I echo your comments, Mr Speaker, with Christmas wishes for all the House staff, your staff and Members? The UK Government’s attempt to overhaul the EU subsidy scheme has left English farmers 50% worse off in cash terms than in 2020. While the Scottish Government have sought to protect our farmers’ payments, can the Minister guarantee that the UK Government will not try to undermine their payments and devolution by back-door use of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020?

Laura Trott: I note that the hon. Member did not answer my question, nor that of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) about when the ringfenced money will be returned.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Questions are normally to the Minister, not the other way around.

Laura Trott: Very good point, but I still maintain that the hon. Member needs to clarify that matter. It is up to the Scottish Government if they would like at any point to top up the amount that goes to Scottish farming. I encourage them to do so this afternoon at the Budget.

Drew Hendry: I do not think any Scottish farmer will be reassured by what the Minister has just said. I just said that the Scottish Government are protecting those farmers’ payments, while English farmers are losing out, as we know. What we do not have from the UK Government is detail on what they will be doing after 2025. If we had remained in the European Union, we would know that figure for farming subsidies so that the Scottish Government could make plans to help farmers plan ahead. Can the Minister apologise for that situation and guarantee that in the early months of next year we will have clarity on farming payments?

Laura Trott: The UK Government have laid out plans for the agriculture transition in England that go beyond the current spending review, giving farmers increased certainty over policy and spending intent for years to come. The Scottish Government could decide to provide farmers in Scotland with similar certainty if they chose to do so.

Small Businesses: Fiscal Support

Paul Holmes: What fiscal steps his Department is taking to support small businesses.

Nigel Huddleston: A very jolly Christmas to you and all, Mr Speaker.
Small and medium-sized enterprises are the backbone of the economy, and we support them to thrive using levers across government. Our small business rate relief means that one third of business properties in England already pay no business rates. We provide tax reliefs benefiting SMEs, such as annual investment allowance and employment allowance, we support investments in SMEs through the British Business Bank programmes and we fund the schemes offering SMEs training and advice.

Paul Holmes: Merry Christmas to you and yours, Mr Speaker. The autumn statement was a huge success for small businesses across the country, with the Federation of Small Businesses describing it as “a game changer”. Will my hon. Friend outline to the House how the autumn statement package will benefit those small businesses in my constituency on which my towns and villages rely?

Nigel Huddleston: I thank my hon. Friend for his continuing support for small businesses in his constituency. Measures in the autumn statement to help them include extending the retail, hospitality and leisure relief for another year, which will support around 230,000 properties in England. That tax cut is worth nearly £2.4 billion. Meanwhile, by freezing the small business multiplier for a fourth consecutive year, we will be protecting more than a million properties from a multiplier increase. Other announcements that could benefit his constituents include the Help to Grow, management and Made Smarter programmes and moves to tackle late payments.

Emma Lewell-Buck: The new 55-day payment rule will apply to only a few hundred companies contracted by the Government, yet microbusinesses, which do not typically have Government contracts, wait on average 68 days for payments. Those businesses make up the majority of small businesses across our country. Why will the Government not back the Micro Business Alliance’s “Pay in 30 days” campaign?

Nigel Huddleston: As I mentioned, we are well aware of the issue of late payments, and we are in constant dialogue with the key stakeholders in this area, as well as colleagues at the Department for Business and Trade. We will always keep an eye on the measures, but the moves we have already made to tackle late payments, as announced recently, will make a big difference.

Reducing Taxes

Louie French: What steps his Department is taking to reduce taxes.

Caroline Ansell: What steps his Department is taking to reduce taxes.

Wendy Morton: What steps his Department is taking to reduce taxes.

Jeremy Hunt: Thanks to the difficult decisions the Government have taken on inflation and debt, the autumn statement this year was able to deliver the biggest package of tax cuts to be scored since 1988.

Louie French: I very much welcome the tax cuts recently announced by the Chancellor and hope to see more announced soon, especially a rise in the higher rate threshold. As the Conservatives look to reduce the tax burden on working people, does the Chancellor share my concern that £28 billion-a-year unfunded spending commitments would likely see taxes rise and lead to higher interest rates if Labour were ever in government?

Jeremy Hunt: It is not just me but Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies who, when talking about Labour’s plan, has said that
“additional borrowing…drives up interest rates”,
which is, of course, a back-door tax rise on families with mortgages. But as it is Christmas, perhaps I could explain it this way: if Santa borrowed £28 billion, he might have more toys to give out this year, but he would also have debt interest to pay and fewer toys to give out next year.

Caroline Ansell: Record funding is going in to support the cost of childcare, to allow more parents to stay in the workforce. This is very welcome, but the tax burden on single-earner households puts the choice to be a stay-at-home parent beyond the reach of too many. Raising the youngest generation must count as a top investment, so may I ask my right hon. Friend the Chancellor what recent analysis has been undertaken on the transferable allowance? At up to £252 per annum, it is currently not designed to facilitate that choice.

Jeremy Hunt: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. As she knows, the marriage allowance is currently £1,260 per year, and it has been fixed at 10% of the personal allowance since it was introduced in 2015. On this side of the House, we believe it should be a woman’s choice, and we want to make that choice as real as possible for every family. For that reason, we think the best thing we can do is to bring down the taxes paid by working people to put more money into the family budget, and we were happy to make a start on that in the autumn statement.

Wendy Morton: Like many of us in this place, I am a big supporter of Small Business Saturday, and it is important to remember that small businesses are the backbone of local communities all year round. Many are unlikely to be able to take advantage of the Chancellor’s very generous and welcome expensing package, so what additional measures will he continue to consider to support all businesses great and small, including perhaps even corporation tax reductions?

Jeremy Hunt: I thank my right hon. Friend for her question. She will know that 70% of trading businesses only pay the lower corporation tax rate of 19%. That covers the vast majority of small businesses. I used to run my own business; I ran it for 14 years before I came into Parliament. I could not agree with her more: small  businesses are the backbone of the British economy, which is why we are tackling the scourge of low payments and we rolled over the 75% discount on retail, hospitality and leisure business rates in the autumn statement.

Valerie Vaz: Will the Chancellor confirm how much higher the tax burden is forecast to be at the end, compared with at the start, of this Parliament?

Jeremy Hunt: What I can confirm is that, as a result of the measures I took in the autumn statement, it will be lower at the end of the scorecard period than it would otherwise have been, and a lot lower than it would be under any Labour Government.

Derek Twigg: May I ask the Chancellor how many middle-income taxpayers have been paying the higher rate of tax since 2019?

Jeremy Hunt: I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with the exact numbers, but for people on low incomes—people being paid the lowest legally payable wage—their post-tax real income has gone up by 30% since 2010, because the Conservative party believes in making work pay.

Patrick Grady: Why is the fiscal situation strong enough to cut national insurance, but not strong enough to return the overseas aid budget to 0.7% of GNI?

Jeremy Hunt: Because the way we return the overseas aid budget to 0.7% is to grow the economy. By cutting national insurance, we put nearly 100,000 more people into the national workforce, filling nearly one in 10 vacancies in companies up and down the country.

Banking Services: Access

Jeff Smith: What recent steps he has taken to help ensure people have access to banking services.

Bim Afolami: The Government believe that all customers should have appropriate access to banking services, which is why we have legislated to protect access to cash. We also support the FCA’s bank branch closure guidance as well as industry initiatives to provide in-person access, including shared banking hubs at post offices, and access via digital means.

Jeff Smith: More than 5,000 bank branches have closed since 2015. Sadly, the Lloyds bank in Withington village will join the many more branches closing in the coming months and leave Withington without a bank branch, but by the end of the year the industry will have delivered only 30 shared banking hubs. Does the Minister think that the pace and scale of that roll-out is good enough?

Bim Afolami: First, it is worth stating that, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the decisions on whether to open or close branches are commercial ones, and the Government do not interfere with that. However, we have legislated to protect access for cash. The banks need to abide by the Financial Conduct Authority’s guidance, with the latest guidance published only last   week. In relation to shared banking hubs, we should indeed increase the pace at which they are rolled out, and I am talking with the industry about how to do that.

Philip Davies: It is pretty clear that most legacy banks do not give a stuff about their customers and just want to screw as much money out of people as possible. After the scandal of Coutts’s debanking of Nigel Farage, the Government acted swiftly to try to make that much more difficult for other customers, but many businesses face the same problem. What will the Government do to stop businesses being debanked in the same way as individuals?

Bim Afolami: I am not sure that I quite accept my hon. Friend’s characterisation of the banking industry, but I am happy to meet him and discuss the problems he outlined in relation to specific businesses and access to bank accounts.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Tulip Siddiq: Before I ask my question, I want to convey the apologies of the shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves). She is delivering the eulogy at Alistair Darling’s funeral today.
I want to say a few words about Alistair Darling—I am sure you will agree, Mr Speaker—a dedicated public servant, who was respected across both Houses. He led the country’s economic response to the global financial crisis with integrity, honesty and sound judgment, and we will all miss him. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]
As my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith) just said, nearly 6,000 bank branches have closed since 2015, and only 30 banking hubs are up and fully running. That has left countless people financially excluded and affected lots of small businesses. I ask the Minister once again: will he accelerate the roll-out of banking hubs properly? Why are his Government not doing anything to reverse the decline of the great British high street?

Bim Afolami: I agree with the hon. Lady’s words about Lord Darling and echo the words of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.
On bank branches, I will repeat my position: it is important that the Government do not decide when a branch opens and when it closes, but it is a concern when communities are left without appropriate access to cash. That is why we were the first Government to legislate for access to cash, as we did earlier this year, and that is why I believe we should speed up the roll-out of banking hubs. I am working with the industry on ways in which we can do that.

Tulip Siddiq: If the Minister is serious about protecting the future of the great British high street, will he back Labour’s pledge, which has been welcomed by Cash Access UK and the wider sector, to guarantee face-to-face banking in every community and give the FCA the powers it needs to roll out hundreds of banking hubs across the country?

Bim Afolami: As the hon. Lady knows, the industry leads the roll-out of banking hubs. We are supporting it—I say this again—to speed that up as much as possible. I have not seen the Labour pledge—I suspect  that I will not support it—but it is important that the industry hears the views of constituents and Members from across the House and that we speed up the roll-out of banking hubs in communities that need them.

Pension Schemes: Incentivising UK Investment

Flick Drummond: What steps his Department is taking to incentivise pension schemes to invest in the UK.

Bim Afolami: At the autumn statement, we set out a series of measures to improve pension saver returns, increase opportunities for investment and boost the UK’s capital markets and high-growth companies.

Flick Drummond: Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker, and to all those in the House. The UK’s pension funds lag behind their counterparts in the USA, Scandinavia and Australia for investing in technology firms. Can my hon. Friend continue his work on reforms and ensure that more pension fund investment stays in the UK, to boost our tech sector?

Bim Afolami: Under the industry-led Mansion House compact, 11 of the UK’s largest defined contribution pension schemes have signed up to the objective of allocating at least 5% of their funds to unlisted equities by 2030. We believe that could unlock £50 billion of investment in high-growth companies and should help increase returns to savers.

Jim Shannon: The Minister will appreciate that the greatest investment that anyone can make is in themselves and their own country—Northern Ireland and all the United Kingdom. What steps can be taken to ensure UK-wide investment by pensions schemes in cutting edge businesses such as Wrightbus and Thales?

Bim Afolami: There are a couple of things that we need to do. We need to ensure that the industry abides by its commitment to the 5% target. Working with the Exchequer Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Gareth Davies), we must present the right investment opportunities so that the capital goes into the UK in the right way.

Taxation of Long and Short-term Lets

Selaine Saxby: Whether his Department is taking fiscal steps to reduce differences in the levels of taxation between long and short-termlets.

Nigel Huddleston: The Government provide a different income tax regime for short-term lets compared with long-term lets if they qualify as furnished holiday lets, for which there are stringent conditions. As with all aspects of the tax system, the Government keep the tax treatment of property landlords under review. Any decisions on future changes will be taken by the Chancellor in the context of wider public finances.

Selaine Saxby: The changes to landlord tax relief, which fully came in during the pandemic, exclude holiday lets. That has contributed to a significant decline in residential landlords in tourist areas like North Devon. The lack of affordable rental properties has priced out  workers, particularly in the hospitality sector, resulting in businesses reducing their opening hours and therefore their tax contribution to the Treasury. Can my hon. Friend provide any hope of levelling the tax playing field to encourage long-term landlords back to the market?

Nigel Huddleston: I thank my hon. Friend for her continued interest in this area on behalf of her constituents. The Government want to ensure a diverse and sustainable visitor accommodation offer while protecting local communities, including ensuring the availability of affordable housing to rent or to buy. That is why we are introducing a registration scheme for short-term lets in England, which will be a vital step towards achieving that aim. The Government keep the tax treatment of property landlords under review, but I would be happy to meet her to discuss these issues further.

Tim Farron: Throughout Westmorland and Lonsdale we see people, particularly in social care, hospitality and tourism, ejected from their communities because of the collapse in the long-term rental market into a short-term rental market, principally through Airbnb. Will the Minister go further on fiscal controls to make sure that we keep homes available for local people to live in? Will he put pressure on ministerial colleagues to change planning law to make short-term lets a separate category of planning use, so that communities in the lakes and the dales can prevent the collapse of their communities into places only for those who can afford to visit?

Nigel Huddleston: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. We have talked about this topic in my previous roles over many years. He is aware that the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has published a consultation on the introduction of a planning use class for short-term lets. He will also be aware that, through the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023, the Government have introduced a new power to allow councils to apply a council tax premium on second homes. There is progress in this area, but we are always open to new ideas.

Creditors Contacting Customers in Debt: FCA

Jessica Morden: What recent discussions he has had with the Financial Conduct Authority on how creditors contact customers in debt.

Bim Afolami: I was pleased to speak at the launch of the Money and Mental Health Policy Institute’s report on this subject last week, alongside the FCA. It is worth saying that I used to be on the advisory board of that institute. The Government and the FCA will continue to work closely to ensure that consumer protections are fit for purpose, including through our upcoming reform of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

Jessica Morden: A constituent who was a victim of domestic abuse and whose ex-husband fraudulently took out a loan in her name was constantly harassed by creditors as she tried to clear the debt, and, according to a recent report by the organisation that the Minister  mentioned, that is an experience shared by others. Will Ministers discuss with the FCA imposing legal limits on arrears communications in cases such as this, as other countries have done?

Bim Afolami: Let me say two things. First, I pay tribute to the former Financial Secretary, now the Health Secretary—my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins)—who did a great deal of work in relation to economic abuse. I am committed to continuing that work with the Treasury to ensure that we limit the circumstances in which the incidents described by the hon. Lady can occur. As for the broader question of what the regulator does in such cases, we have put a record level of funding, to the tune of some £93 million, into working with regulators on debt advice. I shall be happy to discuss with the hon. Lady the details of how we can help her constituents in the way that she suggested.

Household Income: Mortgage Interest Rates

Rachel Hopkins: What recent assessment he has made of the potential impact of changes in mortgage interest rates over the course of this Parliament on household income.

Bim Afolami: As the hon. Lady knows, the path to lower interest rates is through low inflation, and the independent Bank of England has the Government’s full support as it takes action to return inflation to target. The Government’s mortgage charter, brokered by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor earlier in the year, is available to 90% of borrowers. Real disposable income per person is about £800 higher than the Office for Budget Responsibility predicted in its March forecast.

Rachel Hopkins: The expiry of 1.5 million fixed-rate mortgage deals next year will mean even more people paying sky high-costs. It comes at a time when many are suffering increased financial hardship and personal debt, which is having an impact on their mental and physical health. Does the Minister think it fair that families are paying hundreds of pounds more each month to cover the costs of the Government’s mini-Budget disaster?

Bim Afolami: Mortgage costs and interest rates have gone up throughout the world, and we are in more or less the middle of the pack—they are higher in the United States, for example—but what will definitely make things harder for the hon. Lady’s constituents, and indeed all our constituents, is borrowing an extra £28 billion that will only serve to increase inflation and keep rates higher for longer.

Living Standards: OBR Growth Forecasts

Kerry McCarthy: What recent assessment he has made of the potential impact of the OBR’s growth forecasts on living standards.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: What recent assessment he has made of the potential impact of the OBR’s growth forecasts on living standards.

Justin Madders: What recent assessment he has made of the potential impact of the OBR’s growth forecasts on living standards.

Laura Trott: The OBR revised up its growth figures after data revisions by the Office for National Statistics indicated the economy had recovered more fully from the pandemic than had been expected, which means that the current level of real GDP is nearly 3% higher than was predicted in March forecasts.

Kerry McCarthy: The Government put a positive spin on the provisional local government finance settlement yesterday, but the Local Government Association said that it did not provide enough funding to meet the severe cost and demand pressures on councils, and assumed that all councils would increase their tax bills by the maximum allowed next year. What will that do for my constituents’ living standards?

Laura Trott: As the hon. Lady will know, we put billions of pounds into councils this year, and the provisional settlement is above what is expected to be the inflation rate next year. If she has specific issues with her local council, I shall be happy to take that up with her.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: We have seen one of the greatest falls in living standards in a generation, and the Chancellor has callously removed the household support fund from councils. In Brighton the fund pays for free school meal vouchers in the holidays, the warmth and wellbeing scheme, career centres, family hubs, and food banks such as the one in Whitehawk where my constituency office has its surgeries. Will the Minister think again about scrapping the household support fund, so that councils can support the very worst off?

Laura Trott: I want to reassure the hon. Gentleman: no decision has been made about the household support fund. More broadly, however, we have pulled in an average of £3,700 per household this year to help people with exactly what we are talking about. This Government are on the side of people during what is a very difficult time.

Justin Madders: According to the Low Pay Commission, one in five people who should be receiving the national minimum wage do not even get that. This is a huge failure of enforcement. How can we have increased living standards if people do not even receive the legal minimum to which they are entitled?

Laura Trott: If the hon. Gentleman can give individual examples, I ask him please to let us know. It is, obviously, extremely important that we enforce this, but I should point out that we will increase the levels by 9.8% next year, which will make a significant difference to households up and down the country.

Greg Smith: Is not the more fundamental problem with the question posed by Opposition Members the fact that the OBR’s forecasts are never right?

Laura Trott: All I can say is that they have definitely gone in the right direction, because the economy next year will be billions of pounds bigger than we thought it was going to be in March.

Public Spending: Value for Money

Samantha Dixon: What steps he is taking to ensure value for money in public spending.

Laura Trott: Value for money is at the heart of Government spending and it is one of the key considerations for any decision involving the use of public funds across Government. As Chief Secretary, I am committed to tackling waste and promoting productivity across the public sector.

Samantha Dixon: Last year, Government officials admitted that they were paying companies to burn and destroy 15,000 pallets of unusable personal protective equipment each month. Does the Treasury have any idea how much wasted PPE has gone up in smoke this year?

Laura Trott: During the pandemic our priority was absolutely clear: to get PPE to the frontline as quickly as possible. There was an unprecedented global increase in demand for PPE during the emergency response to the pandemic and items were procured at pace. The Department of Health and Social Care continues to seek to recover fraud losses to ensure that public funds are protected.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

James Murray: Throughout the pandemic, people across the country made extraordinary and heart-wrenching sacrifices, yet as they did so, a small minority were instead making millions of pounds by ripping off the taxpayer. With conflicts of interest, defective goods and exorbitant profit margins, it has been greedy and grubby and this Conservative Government have enabled it all. As taxpayers, we want our money back, so Labour will create a covid corruption commissioner to chase down every pound we can. Does the Minister have any idea just how angry people are that our country has been taken for a ride?

Laura Trott: The hypocrisy is absolutely astonishing. During the pandemic the shadow Chancellor wrote that the strategy of turning to big-name UK manufacturers was not delivering the supply that was needed. Yes, we procured things very fast—we needed to do that to get things to the frontline—and we are trying to get back every single penny that was lost to fraud, but we make no apology for doing whatever we could to get PPE to the frontline as quickly as possible.

James Murray: The Minister’s response really does not reflect the seriousness of the situation. This is not just one bad apple; this is a rotten culture that goes to the very top, with £8.7 billion lost on wasted PPE and £7.2 billion lost to covid fraud. That is £15.9 billion of public money gone at a time when people and public services are struggling. Can the Minister remind the House who was Chancellor at the time that all of this was signed off?

Laura Trott: I do not know what more I can add to my last answer. This was done very quickly, at pace, because we were desperate to get PPE to the frontline as quickly as possible. We have set up initiatives to recoup money from fraudulent activity including the Public Sector Fraud Authority, which has already saved taxpayers £311 million in the first year of operation.

Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures: Recommendations

Therese Coffey: If he will make mandatory the recommendations on reporting of the taskforce on nature-related financial disclosures.

Bim Afolami: This Government have been one of the largest donors to the global market-led taskforce on nature-related financial disclosures—TNFD—initiative. We will consider how best the TNFD’s recommendations should be incorporated into policy and legislative architecture in a manner that is coherent with global sustainability reporting.

Therese Coffey: Merry Christmas to you, Mr Speaker, and to the officers, Clerks and staff of the House. I am encouraged by my hon. Friend’s answer. It was a year ago today that the global biodiversity framework was agreed in Montreal, and it was absolutely necessary to restore biodiversity loss. The TNFD initiative was launched by the UK G7 presidency in 2021 and it featured in the green finance strategy that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and I did the ministerial foreword to earlier this year. He will be aware of the recommendations that were launched in September. I am conscious that there was a lot of support from the Treasury previously and that we should try to accelerate the International Sustainability Standards Board standards so that we can bring in this initiative just as successfully as we have done for the TCFD—the taskforce on climate-related financial disclosures.

Bim Afolami: I thank my right hon. Friend for her question. She mentions the Treasury’s green finance strategy, which contains plans to bring forward the sustainability disclosure requirements, building on the global commitments. We have already implemented the climate-related financial disclosures, and we are looking very carefully at the nature-related financial disclosures. We hope to update the House in due course.

Business Investment

Jack Brereton: What steps his Department is taking to help increase the level of business investment.

Gareth Davies: In the autumn statement, the Chancellor announced an ambitious growth package that will boost business investment by making full expensing permanent, by removing barriers to business investment, by reforming our inefficient planning system, by speeding up electricity grid connection times and by making £4.5 billion available for strategic manufacturing sectors over the next five years, among other measures.

Jack Brereton: I thank the Minister for that response. It is very welcome to see full expensing, which will help businesses to invest in the plant and machinery and the technology that are needed. It would also help the ceramics sector, in particular, if it were exempted from the emissions trading scheme. Will my hon. Friend speak to the Chancellor about the possibility of exempting the ceramics sector from the ETS, which would help to give the sector the breathing space to invest in productivity and energy efficiency gains?

Gareth Davies: I can think of few greater champions for Stoke’s ceramics sector than my hon. Friend. We recognise that carbon leakage is a significant risk for the ceramics sector, so I can offer him two pieces of information. First, we provide free allowances to the ceramics sector under the ETS. Secondly, just yesterday we announced that ceramics will be included in the UK’s carbon border adjustment mechanism.

Fuel Duty: Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism

John Penrose: If he will make an estimate of the potential impact of a carbon border adjustment mechanism in the form recommended by the Commission for Carbon Competitiveness on fuel duty.

Gareth Davies: The Government have announced that they will implement a CBAM from January 2027. The UK CBAM will place a carbon price on some of the most emissions-intensive industrial goods imported to the UK and will ensure that the UK’s decarbonisation efforts lead to a true reduction in global emissions, rather than simply displacing carbon emissions overseas. The delivery of a CBAM will be the subject of further consultation in 2024.

John Penrose: I congratulate the Minister. A CBAM is the cheapest and most future-proof way to save the planet and UK manufacturing jobs at the same time, but some of the details look troubling. Why have some manufacturing industries been left out entirely? Why are others arriving late, so they will be vulnerable to dumping? And how will he ensure that this is not just a tax and price rise for already hard-pressed families and businesses?

Gareth Davies: I recognise and thank my hon. Friend for his work as chair of the Commission for Carbon Competitiveness. I will directly address his two main questions. On speed, implementation by 2027, at the latest, will allow the Government to engage with businesses to ensure that they are well prepared, but next year’s consultation will provide more information on timings. We have identified eight sectors that have the greatest exposure to carbon leakage, from both a trade and an emissions perspective.

Investment Zones

Nigel Mills: What progress he has made on the introduction of investment zones.

Gareth Davies: Since the spring Budget, the Government have announced seven of the eight English investment zones and confirmed the location of four places eligible to   host investment zones in Scotland and Wales. The Government are committed to ensuring that funding and tax sites go live in the 2024-25 financial year.

Nigel Mills: I welcome the investment zone in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire. Will the Minister confirm that some of the benefits of these zones are not only available in the small number of large sites but are available to any business across the whole zone to apply for?

Gareth Davies: My hon. Friend is right to recognise the east midlands investment zone, which will bring significant benefits across the region in the advanced manufacturing and green industry sectors. I am pleased to tell him that it started with a £9.3 million anchor investment and, over time, will leverage some £323 million in private investment, supporting 4,000 jobs overall.

Inflation

Theresa Villiers: What steps he is taking to reduce inflation.

Laura Trott: Inflation has now halved from 11.1% in October 2022 to 4.7% in October 2023, delivering on the Prime Minister’s pledge. This has happened not by accident but as a result of difficult decisions made by the Government and the Bank of England—Government decisions that were opposed every step of the way by the Labour party.

Theresa Villiers: Thank you for calling me to ask a question while I catch my breath, Mr Speaker!
A major component of inflation over this past year has, of course, been the energy price shock. What are the Government doing to ensure the continued expansion of renewable energy so that we have greater energy security, and so that we are more resilient in the face of energy price shocks from overseas?

Laura Trott: My right hon. Friend is right, and she nailed the delivery of her question while out of breath.
At the autumn statement, the Chancellor announced measures that demonstrate the Government’s ongoing commitment to renewable energy as a priority growth sector essential to our energy security and net zero ambitions. The announcements made include a new investment exemption from the electricity generator levy and a £960 million green industries growth accelerator.

Topical Questions

Lisa Cameron: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Jeremy Hunt: Today is the funeral of Lord Darling, who will be greatly missed by many in this House, as well as by Maggie and his family. Civil servants are known for being good at concealing their private feelings about more challenging Ministers, but that was never necessary with Alistair Darling. He was Chief Secretary to the Treasury and then Chancellor during the global financial crisis, and despite the many stresses and strains of that period, he was uniformly admired and much loved for his kindness,   decency and dry sense of humour. He took decisions in that period that have stood the test of time and put him on the small list of Chancellors whom history will remember for wise decision making in an unprecedented crisis. We will always remember him.
Finally, Mr Speaker, may I wish you and all the staff in the House a merry and peaceful Christmas?

Lisa Cameron: I, too, send my full sympathy. I also wish everyone across the House a merry Christmas.
Industry has fully supported the Prime Minister’s vision of the UK becoming a cryptocurrency hub, but many licensed companies are still finding it difficult to open bank accounts here. So will the Chancellor meet the all-party group on crypto and digital assets to discuss what progress can be made on digital Britain?

Jeremy Hunt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking that question, because the UK, and London in particular, has become the global crypto hub. To make sure that the market can really take off in the way that was intended—in a responsible way—we need to regulate it, which is why we have introduced regulations on stablecoins and on the promotion of crypto services. My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury would be more than happy to meet her.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Darren Jones: Merry Christmas to you and to the House, Mr Speaker. Let me start by thanking the Chancellor for his kind words about the late Lord Darling, which I think show the gratitude of Members from across the House for his lifetime of public service.
The public have a right to know why so many billions of pounds of their taxes have been wasted by this Government. Baroness Mone has claimed today that Conservative Ministers knew about her personal connections to the company PPE Medpro from the very beginning. So why did the Government not correct the record when a misleading picture was being painted in the media about Baroness Mone’s personal connection to PPE Medpro in the first place?

Jeremy Hunt: I am not going to comment on allegations by Baroness Mone or, indeed, on the individual case, but let me say this: we put together a taskforce of more than 1,000 people that opened 46,000 investigations and so far has made more 80 arrests, so we will stop at nothing to tackle fraud and bring to justice anyone who was responsible for wrongdoing. But what we did in a moment of extreme crisis was to make sure that we got personal protective equipment to the frontline as quickly as we could, and had we not done so many more lives would have been lost.

Darren Jones: We all know that Baroness Mone’s enrichment via PPE Medpro is subject to an investigation, but that does not allow Ministers to refuse to answer questions here in the House today. So let me ask another: Baroness Mone’s husband, Doug Barrowman, alleged that in November 2022 he was approached by a Government official asking if they would
“pay more for the other matter to go away.”
Is that specific and incredibly serious claim now being investigated and, if so, by whom?

Jeremy Hunt: If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence of people behaving improperly or illegally, he should tell the police, and he will get the full support of this Government and the whole House in bringing the matter to justice. But let me just say to him that any responsible Opposition should understand that in a crisis there is a trade-off between speed and taking longer to prevent fraud, and we took the right decision to save as many lives as possible.

Greg Smith: I am hearing from a concerning number of small businesses in my constituency that they are slowing down as they approach the VAT threshold, rather than doing what the whole economy needs them to do and going for growth. Ahead of the spring Budget, will my right hon. Friend look at substantially shifting the VAT threshold upwards?

Nigel Huddleston: My hon. Friend is a great advocate for small businesses. The Government recognise that accounting for VAT can be a burden on businesses, but that is why, at £85,000, the UK has a higher VAT registration threshold than any EU member state and the second highest in the OECD, keeping the majority of UK businesses out of VAT altogether. In the 2022 autumn statement, it was announced that the VAT threshold would be maintained at its current level until 31 March 2026. As always, the Government keep taxes under review.

Stephen Timms: I echo the Chancellor’s generous and well-judged tribute to Alistair Darling.
At the autumn statement, the Chancellor said—mistakenly, as it turned out—that the household support fund was being extended into the next financial year; the Chief Secretary to the Treasury clarified the position a few moments ago. Does the Chancellor recognise that there is a compelling case for him to announce exactly that extension in the Budget, so that councils can continue to provide the last-resort safety net that has been such a valuable feature of the household support fund over the last three years?

Jeremy Hunt: I recognise the important role the household support fund has played. As my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said earlier, no decisions have been made about what will happen going forward. There were a lot of anti-poverty measures in the autumn statement, including increasing benefits next year by double the rate of inflation, increasing the full-time national living wage by £1,800 a year and increasing the local housing allowance, providing an average of an extra £800 to 1.6 million households.

Harriett Baldwin: Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker, to you, your team and the Treasury team.
Between now and the next Treasury questions, millions of our constituents will be required to file a self-assessment tax return, yet this week we learned that His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has suddenly shut down its hotline for the majority of people and their advisers. Our most law-abiding citizens are trying to get their taxes right, so what advice can my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury give to them as to how they can contact HMRC?

Nigel Huddleston: I thank my hon. Friend the Chair of the Treasury Committee for raising this issue with me. We want to ensure that people can be served accurately and effectively through the most efficient channels. Two thirds of calls to the self-assessment line could be resolved online, through other channels—I highly recommend the app, for example. Last year, HMRC received over 3 million calls on three issues—resetting a password, getting a tax code and getting a national insurance number—that could easily be resolved digitally. People will still be able to call in, but we need to redeploy resources away from very simple questions towards those most in need, which will help those who are digitally unaware.

Janet Daby: Mr Speaker, I wish you, your staff and everyone across the House a very happy Christmas.
It has been reported that the Prime Minister instructed a £40 million VIP helicopter service that had been earmarked for closure to continue to provide him with flights. Will the Treasury publish a cost-benefit analysis of that decision for taxpayers to see?

Jeremy Hunt: I do not know the details of the issue raised by the hon. Lady, but I assure her that the Treasury is ferocious in its determination to ensure that every penny of the public’s money is spent wisely.

Rob Roberts: The electrification of the north Wales main line has been a vital issue to Delyn and the rest of north Wales for many years. Back in 2015, when it was judged as costing about £850 million, it was kiboshed by the Treasury as not being value for money. Now that it is expected to cost over £1 billion, will the Chancellor guarantee that the project will definitely go ahead and that the Treasury will not put a stop on it again?

Laura Trott: I will write to the hon. Gentleman.

Sarah Dyke: Mr Speaker, I wish you, those across the House and my constituents a very merry Christmas.
People in rural areas suffer more than their urban counterparts because of the rural premium they encounter in their daily lives. With food inflation at around 10%, people in Somerton and Frome are once again facing a choice between heating and eating. What recent assessment has the Department made of the effect of inflation on food prices?

Laura Trott: I know that the hon. Lady will have welcomed the most important change to cost of living pressures, which is inflation coming down. In addition, we have had the cost of living payments this year, and also benefits going up by 10.1% this year and by more than the expected level of inflation next year. We as a Government have done all we can to support people and will continue to do so.

Tim Loughton: Mr Speaker, as mine is the last name on the Order Paper, may I wish you and Mrs Speaker, and the two Front-Bench teams, a very happy Christmas?
Notwithstanding his predilection for myrrh and frankincense, may I ask the Chancellor to comment on the state of our gold reserves and whether, in a world where peace to all men seems to be in rather short supply at the moment, he anticipates adding to them in 2024?

Jeremy Hunt: As I go to carol services over the festive period, I will make sure that I am suitably inspired by what the three wise men brought to the crib. I can tell my hon. Friend that I am actually visiting our gold reserves this week, so I will see at first hand just how important they are.

Rachael Maskell: Right now, council leaders up and down the country are having to make very difficult decisions on cutting vital services—not because of profligacy, but because of Government cuts to their funding. What steps is the Chancellor taking to ensure that local authorities—such as that in York, which is the lowest-funded area—are adequately funded?

Laura Trott: The hon. Lady will have heard my answer to a previous question where I stated that we have put billions of pounds of extra money into local government this year to cover pressures. We recognise that those pressures are real, which is why the provisional settlement proposes an above-inflation rise for next year.

David Davis: A fortnight ago, Kaye Adams, a TV presenter, won her case against His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs on IR35 status. Despite the fact that she won her first tax tribunal on the issue, HMRC took her to either a tribunal or court four times over a nine-year period, forcing her to spend £200,000 in legal fees. HMRC spent many times that, using two King’s counsel at the last hearing alone. This was over a net tax bill of £70,000. There is no conceivable economic case for that. What HMRC is trying to do is move the guidelines by coercing Ms Adams and using her as an example to intimidate other self-employed workers to give in to HMRC’s bullying. This is a disgrace. It has gone on for too long. The 2021 revisions were inadequate and ministerial oversight is too weak. When will the Government review IR35 and, ideally, abolish it?

Nigel Huddleston: It is our duty to ensure that everyone pays the right tax under the law regardless of wealth or status. We note the decision of the tribunal and will carefully analyse the outcome before considering the next steps, but the off-payroll rules ensure that people who work like employees, but through their own limited company, are taxed like employees, creating a level playing field for other workers.

Dave Doogan: UK capital requirement regulations mandate a 50% level of capitalisation to be held by lenders for longer terms as opposed to 20% for shorter terms. Car manufacturer banks, such as Renault’s RCI Financial Services, underpin every franchise car dealer across these islands and operate on a seven-day notice period to terminate in order to minimise their capital requirements at 20%. The problem arises when a bank such as RCI maladministers a serious activity report, panics over its obligations under the regulations and terminates an award-winning Renault, Nissan and  Dacia dealer such as Mackie Motors in my constituency with seven days’ notice. Will the Chancellor or one of his Ministers meet me to discuss this crisis?

Bim Afolami: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. Indeed, I will meet him to discuss the matter to make sure that this regulation does not have the adverse effects that he has outlined.

Philip Dunne: Since the Prime Minister’s speech on net zero in September, Nissan has announced a £2 billion investment in Sunderland, which comes hot on the heels of Tata’s £4 billion investment in batteries. EDF Masdar has announced an £11 billion investment in offshore wind in Dogger Bank. In his autumn statement, the Chancellor announced a tripling of tidal energy contracts for difference. We had 11 hydrogen projects announced last week. There are six companies bidding for small modular reactors. [Interruption.] Is it not the case that, hot on the heels of yesterday’s announcement of a £6 billion allocation of energy efficiency funding and the carbon border adjustment mechanism—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We had this last time with you. I’m sorry, but I am trying to be generous because it is Christmas. Do not take advantage of other Members; I still have others to get in. It is just not fair, and it is very selfish to carry on when I have asked you not to. I do not find it acceptable. I look forward to the apology shortly. Would someone like to answer that question, briefly?

Jeremy Hunt: I thank my right hon. Friend for his question and for his campaigning on these issues. I just note that on electric vehicle manufacturing alone, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders says that in the past year we have had more investment pledged for UK electric vehicles than in the previous seven years combined.

Jim Shannon: The life sciences sector is worth £2.4 billion to the Northern Ireland economy. What steps have been taken, with counterparts in the Northern Ireland Assembly, to increase funding for employment within this worthy sector?

Gareth Davies: The hon. Gentleman is quite right that life sciences is one of the key growth industries for this country. I would be happy to meet him to discuss all the things we are doing for the sector, particularly in Northern Ireland.

Tobias Ellwood: Our economy continues to be impacted by the war in Ukraine and denial across the Black sea, and we now must brace ourselves for further economic shocks as global shipping avoids the Red sea. Does the Minister agree that we should be protecting these shipping lanes? Our Navy is now too small by half to protect our maritime interests, so will he now look at investing in our surface fleet to protect our economy?

Jeremy Hunt: As my right hon. Friend knows, I have long believed in the importance of investing in our armed forces, but that ultimately depends on a strong economy that will pay for sustained investment, and that is what is happening under this Government.

Richard Fuller: Will the Chancellor update the House on how he plans to move forward with some of the key recommendations from Lord Harrington’s review into foreign direct investment in the UK?

Jeremy Hunt: I am happy to do that. In fact, I hosted a reception for Lord Harrington and the people responsible for that review last week. We will start by increasing the budget of the Office for Investment so that it can give a more bespoke service to potential overseas investors.

Peter Gibson: We are all mindful of the need to control public finances and slim the civil service, but can my right hon. Friend reassure my constituents that the Darlington Economic Campus will receive the jobs that were promised, and will he give consideration to my proposal to name their permanent home of DEC William McMullen House, in recognition of the sacrifice William made for people of Darlington?

Laura Trott: My hon. Friend is a brilliant advocate for his constituency. I hear what he has to say and I am happy to meet him to talk about it.

Martin Vickers: My right hon. Friend is well aware of the threat to thousands of jobs at Scunthorpe steelworks and many more in the supply chain that supports it, all of which would have a devastating effect on the economy of northern Lincolnshire. Can he and his colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade bring a speedy conclusion to the negotiations and lift the cloud over Scunthorpe?

Jeremy Hunt: I thank my hon. Friend for his campaigning on that issue and reassure him that we in the Treasury completely understand how vital steel is to the future of his area and to his constituents. We will continue to do everything we can to resolve the situation as quickly as possible.

Israel and Gaza

Layla Moran: (Urgent Question): To ask the Minister if he will make a statement on the situation in Israel and Gaza.

Andrew Mitchell: The whole House will be gravely concerned about the desperate situation in Gaza. It cannot continue, and we are deploying all our diplomatic resources, including in the United Nations, to help find a viable solution. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her urgent question and for the private messages from Gaza that she has made available to me, and I look forward to meeting her in the Foreign Office tomorrow.
The scale of civilian deaths and displacement in Gaza is shocking. I was particularly disturbed to hear about the situation of civilians trapped in the Holy Family church complex in Gaza City, the lack of water and food, and reports of sniper fire causing civilian deaths inside the complex. Although Israel has the right to defend itself against terror, restore its security and bring the hostages home, it must abide by international law and take all possible measures to protect civilians.
No one wants to see this conflict go on for a moment longer than necessary. We recognise the sheer scale of the suffering, and are appalled at the impact on civilians. We urgently need more humanitarian pauses to get all the hostages out and lifesaving aid in. We welcome the recent opening of the Kerem Shalom crossing to help achieve that, but it is not enough. Our immediate priorities are to secure the release of British hostages, to show solidarity with Israel in defending itself against Hamas while complying with international humanitarian law, and to call for such pauses, both at the UN and directly with Israel, to ensure that emergency aid can be distributed in Gaza, including fuel, water and medicine.
The Foreign Secretary will discuss the situation in Gaza with regional leaders this week in his visit to Egypt and Jordan. The Government have recently announced an additional £30 million of British aid, tripling the UK aid budget for the Occupied Palestinian Territories this financial year. To date, we have delivered 74 tonnes of aid, but there is still more to do. Casualty numbers are far too high, and we are calling on Hamas to release each and every kidnapped hostage. We are also actively exploring other routes for aid into Gaza, including maritime options.
Of course, as both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have said, ultimately this must end. We of course want to see an end to the fighting, but it must be a sustainable ceasefire, meaning that Hamas must stop launching rockets into Israel and must release the hostages. More than 130 hostages are still unaccounted for. They must be released immediately and returned to their families. To achieve long-term peace in the middle east, a viable two-state solution is needed. Leaving Hamas in power in Gaza would be a permanent roadblock on the path to that; no one can be expected to live alongside a terrorist organisation committed to their destruction and dedicated to repeating those attacks.

Layla Moran: I am extremely grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting the urgent question, and I thank the Minister for his response. Let me begin by pointing Members towards my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—I am an unpaid adviser to International Centre of Justice for Palestinians.
I have spoken before in the House about my extended family who are in the Holy Family parish church in Zeitoun, Gaza. The situation has been desperate for weeks but is now descending further. There are tanks outside the gates, and soldiers and snipers pointing into the complex and shooting at anyone who ventures out, and the convent was bombed. On Saturday, two women were shot. They were simply trying to get to the toilet. There is no electricity or clean water, and the update that I had last night was that they were down to their last can of corn. I am told that, after pressure, food has been delivered, but they have not seen it.
When this began a week ago, the Israel Defence Forces soldiers ordered those civilians to evacuate against their will. Can the Government confirm that they see the forcible displacement of civilians as unacceptable? The people in the church are civilians. They have nothing to do with Hamas. They are nuns, orphans and disabled people; they are a small Christian community and they know everyone. As the Pope has said, and as my family can confirm, it is categorically untrue to say that Hamas are operating from there. The situation has been condemned by many. Will the Government condemn it?
It is important to stress that the suffering is not confined to just that church. Just last week, we saw the utterly tragic deaths of three Israeli hostages. Others are reported to have been murdered by Hamas, and 100 are still in captivity. That is also unacceptable. Seventy-three days on in this conflict, the death toll is only rising. It is time for the international community to say that this violence is now making peace harder, not easier.
The UK Government talk now of a sustainable ceasefire, and although I and the Liberal Democrats welcome the change in tone, it is unclear whether that is in fact a change in position. Will the Government demand an immediate bilateral ceasefire? Will they change how they vote at the UN Security Council as a result? When will the Prime Minister accept that the only route to peace is political, not military—that there is one way to get rid of Hamas and end the humanitarian catastrophe, and it is not this? When will the United Kingdom fulfil its historical obligations to the region and recognise Palestine as a first step towards delivering the two states, which is the only way to guarantee security and dignity for Israelis and Palestinians?

Andrew Mitchell: I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. I understand how deeply distressing this is for her, with her family caught up in the Holy Family church complex. As I said in my response, I am grateful to her for the harrowing update she was able to give me direct from the Holy Family church. I am very pleased to hear that she thinks food has been delivered—we will follow up on that point directly after this urgent question.
The hon. Lady talked about the protection of civilians; the British Government make absolutely clear that international humanitarian law must be abided by. She also mentioned humanitarian aid; we understand that yesterday 191 trucks entered the Gaza strip, 127 through Rafah and 64 through Kerem Shalom, which is a new  avenue that we very much welcome. Finally, on the point she made about the United Nations, we are working with partners on a resolution, and I expect there will be a vote at 3 pm today, UK time. That is what we are working towards, and while the position is not yet clear, we are hoping to support that resolution.

Tobias Ellwood: While walking to Parliament yesterday, I politely challenged a driver who had selfishly parked his car in the bus lane leading on to Chelsea bridge so that he could buy a coffee at the nearby kiosk. When I suggested he move it given the traffic chaos it was causing, he blankly refused, began swearing at me, threatened to throw my phone in the river if I took a photo of him, and then called me a racist and a Zionist. Sadly, that illustrates how hate and intolerance here in the UK are being fuelled by events in the middle east. This conflict is now in its third month, with no end in sight, no clarity from Israel as to how long the occupation will last, and the death toll is mounting. Does the Minister agree that without concerted international intervention, the conflict will escalate?

Andrew Mitchell: I am appalled to hear about the way in which my right hon. Friend was treated on his way into the House of Commons. We are stressing the importance of a more surgical approach by the Israeli Defence Forces and are working towards a more sustainable cessation of hostilities. We recognise that there are too many casualties, and we are pressing forward on what is the policy of both the Government and the Opposition: more extensive humanitarian pauses, so that aid can get into Gaza.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

David Lammy: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for securing this very important urgent question. May I say how deeply sorry I am to hear of the terrifying experience facing her family in Gaza? I am sure the whole House is with her and her relatives at what must be an incredibly difficult time.
The reports from the Holy Family Catholic church are shocking: an innocent mother and daughter killed in the grounds of a church, with others too scared to leave and now running out of food. Once again in this conflict, a place of sanctuary and peace has become a scene of fear and death. It is one example of the ongoing humanitarian catastrophe confronting civilians across Gaza, and a reminder of the urgent imperative to address this crisis and help bring about the conditions for a sustainable ceasefire. It comes at a moment of growing concern that this conflict could escalate, with Hezbollah in the north, more violence in the west bank, and Houthi threats in the Red sea. We support efforts to maintain regional security, and Labour welcomes the UK’s participation in the new maritime security effort. We thank our armed forces personnel for their service and professionalism.
Today, the United Nations Security Council is voting once again on a resolution. This is a crucial chance to address the urgent and catastrophic situation in Gaza. Let me be clear: Labour wants a resolution to pass, one that can protect civilian lives, that demands that hostages are released, and that can act as a stepping stone towards a sustainable ceasefire and provide renewed  impetus towards a two-state solution. The time has come for the United Kingdom to support our international allies at this critical moment.

Andrew Mitchell: I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for his comments. We are, as he knows, very committed to trying to make sure that there is no escalation. I thank him for his welcome for the US-led work to secure maritime security, and I also thank him for his comments, particularly at this time of year, about our armed forces. I have already commented on the UN Security Council resolution, which I hope will be voted on this afternoon; like him, I hope that agreement can be reached.
On the issue of the humanitarian catastrophe to which the shadow Foreign Secretary referred, I can tell him that there is some movement this week. There are 50 World Food Programme trucks ready at Allenby bridge to travel through Israel to Kerem Shalom, and if signed off, that will provide a new route through to Gaza. We have made available some money to the World Food Programme—it is available today—to enhance that route if it opens.

Robert Jenrick: All of us abhor the loss of innocent civilian life in Israel and Gaza, but talk of a “sustainable ceasefire” is unhelpful. All it does is give succour to Israel’s enemies at the time of its greatest need. This is a country that fell to its knees just a few weeks ago and suffered the worst tragedy since the holocaust. Now it is trying to eliminate Hamas and to free the hostages, some of whom are British citizens. Let it finish the job, let it protect Israeli security, and in doing so, let Israel protect our security as well.

Andrew Mitchell: While it is true that weapons have been discovered in incubators in a hospital in Gaza, nevertheless I do not agree with my right hon. Friend. We are working towards a sustainable ceasefire. We are not there yet, but we should all of us be working towards that. In the meanwhile, on the pathway to a sustainable ceasefire, we need urgently to get these humanitarian pauses so that humanitarian relief can enter Gaza.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Brendan O'Hara: I, too, send my very best wishes to the family of the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran).
As we know, later today the Government’s call for a sustainable ceasefire will be tested at the UN Security Council. If the Government again decide to abdicate their responsibility to humanity and abstain, they will be giving Netanyahu the political cover he needs to prosecute a war in which tens of thousands have already been killed and in which, at the weekend, according to the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem,
“a sniper of the IDF murdered two women inside the Holy Family Parish in Gaza.”
If the UK is unable to support a ceasefire now, when will it? What has to happen before this Government say enough is enough, and that the indiscriminate killing of innocents, the blanket bombing of civilian infrastructure and the killing of journalists has to stop now? How many more breaches of international humanitarian law will it take for this Government to find the moral courage to say, “This has to stop, and it has to stop now”?

Andrew Mitchell: I do not think this is an issue of moral courage. The Government, with the support of those on the Opposition Front Bench, are doing what we believe to be right. We have been very clear that Israel has a right to defend itself, but it must do more to diminish and minimise the number of civilian casualties. On the point the hon. Member made about the United Nations resolution, which we hope will be passed this afternoon, as I have said, skilled British diplomats in New York are engaged in talking throughout the United Nations to try to make sure that that resolution lands in the way both he and I want.

Paul Bristow: I welcome the calls from the Foreign Secretary for a sustainable ceasefire, and I welcome my right hon. Friend’s words from the Dispatch Box today. Over the weekend, the Foreign Secretary received two letters, one from 10 Back Benchers on this side of the House and another from a group of foreign policy experts, calling for a permanent ceasefire. The last truce resulted in over 80 hostages being released and hundreds of lives being saved. Does my right hon. Friend accept that a permanent ceasefire would reap similar results?

Andrew Mitchell: It is true that the Foreign Secretary received a letter over the weekend, signed by 10 colleagues, which states:
“It is widely accepted across the world that lasting security for Israel, peace for the Palestinians, an end to the killing, and the defeat of Hamas, can only be achieved through politics and diplomacy and the establishment of two states.”
That is very much the view of the Government as well.

Andrew Bridgen: The Minster has clearly seen the communiqué from the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, pointing out the atrocities committed in the grounds of the Holy Family church, with two people murdered and at least seven wounded. That shows a shocking lack of fire control discipline by the Israeli forces. Will the Minister raise with the Israeli forces my grave concerns, and those of many colleagues across the House, that that is not acceptable?

Andrew Mitchell: There is no need for me to raise it with the Israeli forces, because they are themselves conducting an inquiry into the matter.

Tom Randall: At Gaza’s Kamal Adwan Hospital last weekend, approximately 80 Hamas fighters were arrested, some of whom took part in the 7 October massacres. Weaponry, Hamas intelligence, and military and technological equipment were recovered, and reports suggest that hospital staff directed the Israel Defence Forces to weapons that Hamas had stored inside incubators for premature babies. Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning Hamas for those appalling war crimes, and does he agree that that incident underlines Hamas’s disregard for civilian human life in Gaza?

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend is right to point to those reports. As I mentioned earlier, there have been reports of weapons found in incubators, in particular in Kamal Adwan Hospital. I am sure that every Member of this House condemns without qualification the appalling events perpetrated by Hamas, starting on 7 October.

Valerie Vaz: Does the Minister agree with Cardinal Vincent Nichols’s version of events that took place in the compound of the Holy Family church?

Andrew Mitchell: The right hon. Lady will understand that I am not in a position to make that judgment, but I have heard with great respect what the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster has said.

Edward Leigh: All of us were deeply sympathetic to the plight of our Jewish brothers after the October pogrom, and most of us accepted the argument that an immediate ceasefire would have played into the hands of Hamas, but I think on these Benches the mood is changing. Frankly, what Israel is doing is totally unacceptable. This is indiscriminate bombing of vast civilian populations. Leaving aside the outrage at the Holy Family church, it is simply not in the long-term interests of Israel that it radicalises whole generations of Arab youth. It is not in our interests, either, to be involved in any way on the side of Israel doing that. We must up the rhetoric and condemn that unequivocally.

Andrew Mitchell: My right hon. Friend will have seen the article co-authored by the Foreign Secretary and his German counterpart. He is right to refer to the pogrom that was instigated in October, and also to the importance of a sustainable ceasefire and respect for international humanitarian law. In my view, the answer to his final point is that the moment there is an opportunity to advance a political track, it must be seized by the region, and Britain will do everything it can to support that.

Jeremy Corbyn: We should all thank the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for her steadfastness and for securing this urgent question. Eighteen thousand people have now died across the Gaza strip, and Israel is using food, water and medicine as weapons of war against a civilian population. There are 8,000 missing people under the rubble. As she said, a political solution is required, not a military one. Can the Minister assure the House that the vote today will bring about a ceasefire, and that it will stop the escalation of the war into the Red sea and the Mediterranean, and start to address the underlying issue, which is of course Israel’s occupation of the west bank, the refugees all around the world, and the continued siege of Gaza, which has gone on for decades? We must have the start of a long-term process that brings about real justice for the Palestinian people, or we will be back here again with more war crimes, more deaths, more destruction, and the horrors for decades to come.

Andrew Mitchell: The right hon. Gentleman is entirely right to focus on the United Nations Security Council resolution, which we hope will be passed this afternoon. That is the way we move the situation forward towards the political track that both he and I want to see as rapidly as possible.

Christian Wakeford: We all welcomed the humanitarian pause that saw the release of a number of hostages, and aid delivered into Gaza. On 1 December, the seven-day pause collapsed following the firing of rockets into Israel from Gaza. Hamas also failed to provide a daily list of hostages to be released by 7 am, in  a further violation of the truce. Will the Minister join me in criticising Hamas for violating the truce agreement, once again proving that they are no partners for a lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians?

Andrew Mitchell: The House will note what the hon. Gentleman has said. I assure him that we are doing everything we can to get humanitarian support into Gaza, including focusing specifically on any maritime opportunities. The Royal Fleet Auxiliary Lyme Bay is loaded with supplies in Cyprus, and is ready to sail once we can be assured that the support can be received and delivered.

Mark Logan: With almost 20,000 deaths in Gaza, my constituents in Bolton are asking, “When is ‘enough’ enough?” With 153 countries voting for a ceasefire, when is a “sustainable ceasefire” a ceasefire that happens now? Members of Noorul Islam mosque in Bolton recently visited Egypt to try to get aid across the border into Gaza. Will the Minister meet me to discuss ways that we can work with the Egyptian Government and other partners to ensure that aid can get from Bolton into Gaza?

Andrew Mitchell: I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said today, and for the information and work from his community in Bolton that he is making available to the Foreign Office. Of course I shall be pleased to see him at a mutually convenient time.

Zarah Sultana: Last week I attended a briefing with Professor Ghassan Abu Sitta, a heroic British Palestinian doctor who had just returned from Gaza. Because the Israeli siege prevents medical supplies from entering Gaza, he told us he had to use vinegar and washing up liquid to sterilise wounds, even on the night when he performed amputations on six children. He recounted their screams, and the desperation of their parents. I pay tribute to Professor Ghassan, but it will forever shame this House that the dying and the wounded who he treated were bombed and maimed by Israel with the approval of this place. Will the Government finally listen to the growing global calls and demand an immediate ceasefire?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Lady’s eloquent intervention underlines the importance of achieving a sustainable ceasefire in the way set out by the Foreign Secretary in his article at the weekend.

Michael Ellis: Over the weekend the Israelis uncovered the largest ever Hamas tunnel, at 2.5 miles long. The brother of Hamas’s leader has been seen driving through the tunnel as he hides beneath Gaza’s civilian population. The Minister has already spoken about 70 Hamas fighters surrendering at a hospital where there were firearms in incubators for premature babies. Does he agree that those are important reminders of Hamas’s appalling use of human shields, of why Hamas must no longer brutalise Gaza’s population and terrorise Israelis, and of why the UK would be completely wrong to call for a ceasefire before the threat of Hamas is removed?

Andrew Mitchell: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his comments. I suspect that on both sides of the House there is no need for a reminder of the horrific events that Hamas have perpetrated, on 7 October and  since. As he will understand, we are trying to ensure that the hostages are released as swiftly as possible, that the rockets stop, and that we are able to move to a political process as soon as feasible.

Afzal Khan: Hundreds of British Palestinians have seen multiple generations of their relatives killed, their family homes destroyed and their futures in Gaza decimated. I put on record my thanks to the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) for organising the moving event with Professor Ghassan Abu Sitta. It was a packed room, and not a single eye was dry as we listened to him speak about the horrific situation in the hospitals. Have either the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary or the Minister met any British Palestinian families, including those who have recently returned from Gaza, to witness how they have been affected by Israel’s indiscriminate strikes?

Andrew Mitchell: My understanding is that both the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have had access to that information. The hon. Gentleman makes a plea for those difficulties to end, and I hope he will accept that the Government are doing everything we can to fulfil what he wants to see and what we want to see.

Andrew Percy: There is nothing morally courageous about arguing for the people who committed the atrocities on 7 October—the rapists and murderers who crossed into Israel on that day—to remain in power, which is what those who are demanding a ceasefire with Hamas are asking for. That is the reality. I fear sometimes, listening to what is said here, that some people hope Israel does not succeed in achieving its aim of wiping out this horrendous terrorist cult. While there may be a letter from some colleagues that barely reached double figures, very many of us on the Government Benches have been proud of the strong stand and moral clarity that the Government have had in supporting Israel after what happened on 7 October, and I hope that continues.

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend makes a good point. We are determined that we will end up with a situation where the Palestinians can run their own territory, where the Arab states are heavily involved, and where a political initiative is regionally led. Lots of international work, support and help is required, but we have to get to a point where we can see that political track take shape.

Rushanara Ali: Ahead of today’s UN Security Council vote, a group of foreign policy and military experts, including the former chief of the UK armed forces, General Richards, have called for the Foreign Secretary to support an immediate ceasefire at the UN Security Council. Many have long argued for that, but it can be achieved at the UN Security Council only if the US stops vetoing resolutions. I welcome what the Minister has said about hoping that the UK will support such a resolution, but can he say more about what our Government are doing in the next two hours to convince the US at the minimum to abstain on the resolution to allow it through, or to support it?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Lady will know that Britain always takes a leading role in the drafting and execution of these resolutions. I can tell her that skilled British diplomats are using this time to try to secure an agreement on the Security Council resolution, which I hope may be passed tonight. I can give her no guarantee of that, but I can give her a guarantee that British diplomats are working flat out to achieve it.

Flick Drummond: I thank the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for her important urgent question. I hope that food will be taken to the Holy Family church shortly. I thank the Minister for his comments. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency is looking after 1.4 million people in its camps, which is more than half the population of Gaza. On my visit to Palestine in May, we heard that UNRWA was struggling to find funding. Can we ensure that UNRWA is receiving the money and aid it needs to provide humanitarian assistance to the Palestinians now and in the future?

Andrew Mitchell: We are clear that UNRWA is playing a critical role in Gaza. We are very careful to ensure that the British taxpayers’ money we spend to support UNRWA is spent in the right way. We have significantly increased our support to UNRWA and the Americans have re-engaged in supporting UNRWA.

Steve McCabe: Given the release of the latest Hamas video of three elderly male civilian hostages, does the Minister agree that in all the distress being experienced about events in Gaza, it is important that these innocent hostages do not become the forgotten element of the conflict? Will the Government continue to do all they can to ensure that their safe release is part of any negotiations designed to bring an end to the violence?

Andrew Mitchell: I can give the hon. Gentleman those assurances. He will understand why it is unhelpful across the Floor of the House to discuss the details of the negotiations in respect of the hostages, but he may rest assured that we are acting in precisely the way he has set out.

Lisa Cameron: There are horrific accounts of sexual violence being perpetrated against hostages in this conflict, including the gang rape of women and genital mutilation. Will the Government stand firmly with the survivors of sexual violence, which should never be used as a tool of conflict, and do all possible to strengthen their access to justice?

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend will know that this Government have made a particular and important intervention to try to stop gender-based violence, and in particular the use of sexual crimes in warfare. I can tell her that her view is well heard and well respected, and we will continue to do just that.

Drew Hendry: Can the Minister assure the House that should a vote on a ceasefire be brought forward today at the UN Security Council, the Government will  not abdicate their responsibility to innocent children, women and men, and will vote for that ceasefire and not abstain?

Andrew Mitchell: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Government certainly will not abdicate our responsibility, but how the Government exercise our vote on the Security Council will depend on the text that is agreed.

Theresa Villiers: The entire Bibas family, including 11-month-old Kfir Bibas, were kidnapped on 7 October. Does the Minister agree that preconditions for a ceasefire must include both the military defeat of Hamas and the return of all the hostages?

Andrew Mitchell: Yes.

Stella Creasy: The challenge in securing a sustainable ceasefire—many of us have been calling for a ceasefire for some time—is not just the immediate military concerns, but the allegations of war crimes. Just in the past week alone, the Minister will have seen Houthi forces attacking shipping in the Red sea. He will have seen the situation outlined so powerfully by our colleague, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), in the Holy Family church. On 11 December, when I asked the Minister about this issue, he told the House that the Government were continuing
“to identify and look for mechanisms for ensuring that there can be no impunity”—[Official Report, 11 December 2023; Vol. 742, c. 618-19.]
for anybody who commits a war crime. Can he update us on whether he has identified such a mechanism and what that might be?

Andrew Mitchell: The words I used were absolutely precise. The Government have no tolerance of impunity for those who commit war crimes. There are legal mechanisms and other mechanisms that are available and that we see every day in our papers, and the Government of course support those processes to ensure that there is not impunity for war crimes.

Bob Blackman: One hundred and twenty-nine hostages are still in captivity at the hands of the terrorist group Hamas. Despite diplomatic efforts, the international Red Cross has still not been given access to them. All we see is videos coming out. At the same time, the Hamas leadership is meeting in Turkey with other terrorist groups planning what they will do next. Irrespective of what the United Nations says, calling for a ceasefire just enables Hamas to regroup and set about their evil doings once again.

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. That is why it is the policy of the Government and, as I understand it, the Opposition not to call for an immediate ceasefire. Hamas have made it clear that they will not respect or accept a ceasefire. Indeed, they want to repeat what happened on 7 October. Israel has an absolute right of self-defence to go after the people who perpetrated those terrible events on 7 October.

Richard Burgon: Human Rights Watch has warned that the Israeli Government are using the starvation of civilians as a method of warfare in Gaza. Let us be clear, that is a war crime. Amnesty  has similarly warned of war crimes, as has the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Surely the Government should not be standing by while Israel commits war crimes, but should be calling for an immediate ceasefire that could swiftly help prevent further such crimes. Does the failure to do so not risk complicity in those war crimes?

Andrew Mitchell: The Government have heard the words of President Herzog that Israel will respect international humanitarian law, and the Government expect Israel to abide by the words of the President.

Greg Smith: My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) referred to a meeting of Hamas officials, including its deputy chairman and former leader, in Turkey recently, where Hamas set out their intent to carry on their brutal acts further to the 7 October massacre. What assessment has my right hon. Friend the Minister made of Turkey’s role in facilitating Hamas’s continuing war crimes, and how will he pursue accountability for supposed NATO allies and strategic partners?

Andrew Mitchell: The Government make it clear to all countries where we stand on this. We do not think that a ceasefire at this time is possible or practical. We are seeking humanitarian pauses that are as long as possible to get aid in. We are in favour, when it is conceivably possible, of a sustainable ceasefire, and we hope that time will come as soon as possible.

Sammy Wilson: Is the real reason why there are so many civilian casualties in Gaza not that Hamas have cruelly, deliberately and wilfully used the civilian population as cover, whether by operating from hospitals, firing from schools, storing weapons in people’s houses or hiding among the civilian population? Is that not the reason why we must not allow this terrorist group to continue to have a base from which to try to eliminate Israel, and why a ceasefire at present would stop the Israeli military fulfilling its obligation to protect its people in the long run by eliminating Hamas?

Andrew Mitchell: The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. While Israel uses its military forces to defend its civilian population, Hamas use their civilian population to defend Hamas.

Andrew Western: Last week’s comments from the Israeli ambassador, which effectively ruled out a two-state solution, serve as further evidence of the difference that exists between our aspirations for the region and those of both the Israeli Government and, of course, Hamas. Given the chasm that exists between those conflicting objectives, is it not time to urgently press for a permanent ceasefire to enable the diplomatic measures necessary to bring about consensus on a lasting peace?

Andrew Mitchell: In respect of the comments made by the Israeli ambassador to the UK, the hon. Gentleman will have seen the response of the British Government and, in particular, the response of the Foreign Secretary. On the second part of the hon. Gentleman’s question in respect of a permanent ceasefire, he will have heard not only what the Government have said, but what those on the Opposition Front Bench have said.

Alistair Carmichael: Will the United Kingdom Government urge the Government of Israel to ratify the Rome statute and thus become a state party to the International Criminal Court?

Andrew Mitchell: The right hon. Gentleman will know that Britain is a signatory to the International Criminal Court because we think that it is a vital piece of the international architecture, but it is for all countries to make their own decisions in that respect. He will know that a number of countries, including America, have so far declined to join.

Ruth Cadbury: Shot and killed for going to the toilet—the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) has described just one example of what Palestinians in Gaza are going through. Our heart goes out to her and her family, but also to all the civilians in Gaza who are affected by such appalling treatment at the moment. Many Israeli leaders have openly pushed for the expulsion of Palestinians from the Gaza strip and called for the second Nakba in Gaza. Will the Minister reassure the House that the British Government oppose any such attempt to forcibly expel and displace Palestinians from Gaza?

Andrew Mitchell: Yes.

Rupa Huq: With such death, devastation and destruction, which we have all seen unfold in real time, constituents are asking whether there are any British fingerprints or funding to be found behind the bullets and bombs used in the horror show of Gaza and the west bank. The Minister talks of a two-state solution but, as has been pointed out, the Netanyahu regime and its ambassador to the UK have rejected this. How can we allow the present tactics to go on unabated, when there is no clear picture on how and when this will end?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Lady’s point underlines the vital importance of moving to a political track as soon as it is possible to do so.

Jim McMahon: Britain must maintain that international law is followed on the international stage, specifically the protection of civilians, including innocent children. Does the Minister agree that although the humanitarian pause was an important step—testing the negotiation and mediation of intermediaries, and, of course, the release of hostages—only a lasting ceasefire will bring about the conditions for peace? Does he also agree—we have heard it here in the Chamber today—that the Israeli Government have to accept that for them to have statehood and live in peace, they must want the same for their neighbour too?

Andrew Mitchell: That is why the Government are working towards a sustainable ceasefire. In the meantime, we are anxious to secure the necessary pauses so that aid can get into Gaza as speedily as possible.

Andrew Gwynne: I thank the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for securing this urgent question and you, Mr Speaker, for granting it. My heart goes out to her family and everybody else caught up in this dreadful conflict.
I welcome the words of the Foreign Secretary calling for a sustainable ceasefire, which must see all the hostages released and fighting on both sides end. We need to get the aid in. Will the Minister say more about how we will permanently end this cycle of violence? How do we get a two-state solution?

Andrew Mitchell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He is right that we are not calling for a ceasefire and hoping that somehow it becomes more permanent. What we are doing is calling for a sustainable ceasefire that allows us to move towards the political track, which will then deliver what he is calling for.

Florence Eshalomi: I thank the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran). As we all get ready to celebrate Christmas with our families, she will be thinking desperately about her family, and I think about all the families who will not be together this Christmas.
Pauses are not enough to allow the rehabilitation of vital infrastructure. Due to repeated shutdowns of communications and internet services, Gaza is now in danger of becoming an information vacuum. Transparency is absolutely essential for holding military forces to account and preventing further humanitarian atrocities. Will the Minister please update the House on how  the UK is working to ensure that the power and communications infrastructure is restored, so that we can get help and clarity for those in desperate need?

Andrew Mitchell: We are working to get to that point, but we are not there at the moment. We need to do everything we can to reconnect vital infrastructure that has been destroyed. It is not just about people suffering the effects of kinetic activity; it is also about the effect of the lack of food and growing disease. The hon. Lady may rest assured that, in respect of the infrastructure to which she refers, we will do everything we can when we get the opportunity.

Gavin Newlands: I would like to be able to welcome the incremental move in the Foreign Secretary’s joint statement at the weekend, but given the desperate events in Gaza and the position of the vast majority of the rest of the world, these are just weasel words. The Government and those on the Labour Front Bench were rightly quick to condemn the heinous war crimes committed against civilians in Ukraine and by Hamas on 7 October. The Minister has repeatedly said that Israel needs to abide by international law, but he knows that Israel is not doing so. Is the cold-blooded killing of two civilian women seeking sanctuary in a church a war crime—yes or no?

Andrew Mitchell: In order to give an answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question, I need to know the full facts, and I very much hope that the full facts will become available before too long.

Andrew Slaughter: The agenda of the Netanyahu Government is to save him from jail, wreak revenge on all Gazans for the crimes of Hamas, and recreate the Nakba in the occupied territories. The UK Government’s refusal to call for a ceasefire gives cover to this. How many tens of thousands of Palestinian  civilians must be killed, and how many millions made refugees, starved or terrorised, before this Government call for it to stop, and to stop now?

Andrew Mitchell: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that that is the Government’s position; we are not providing cover for anything. We are insistent that international humanitarian law should be accepted and respected, and we will do everything we can to get to the position of a sustainable ceasefire, but, as he will accept, we are not there yet. In the meanwhile, it is important to press for opportunities to get humanitarian aid and support into Gaza, to help people who are in a terrible position.

Tan Dhesi: The humanitarian crisis in Gaza is grave, with women and children sadly comprising the majority of civilian casualties. Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu must understand that he cannot attain lasting peace and security by razing Gaza to the ground, which must be condemned. We do not just need an immediate cessation of fighting or a temporary week-long ceasefire like the one we had recently; we need negotiations to enable an enduring and permanent ceasefire. What are the UK Government doing to work with our international allies to enable just that?

Andrew Mitchell: The negotiations and discussions with Prime Minister Netanyahu are widespread. The hon. Member will know that there have been regular discussions between our Prime Minister and Prime Minister Netanyahu, and the Foreign Secretary has been a part of them as well. Indeed, I think Sir Tony Blair will also see Prime Minister Netanyahu shortly. So the hon. Member can rest assured that the urgency of the situation is being well ventilated by senior British politicians.

Andy McDonald: Last week, I too had the honour of meeting the heroic Professor Abu Sitta, along with the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) West and other colleagues from across the House. He gave the most harrowing account of his experience working as a surgeon, having to perform amputations on children without proper painkillers and using only vinegar and washing-up liquid to sterilise wounds due to Israel’s blockade on medical supplies. The doctor also spoke of the war crimes been committed, with the Israeli army dropping white phosphorus, which burns deep into the muscle and tissue of children, and snipers killing Palestinian doctors as they cared for the injured and dying. Will the Minister meet the professor to hear for himself about the unspeakable pain and suffering being meted out to innocent people and explain to him why this Government still refuse to condemn these heinous contraventions of international humanitarian law?

Andrew Mitchell: Either I or another Foreign Office Minister will certainly be pleased to meet the professor. The harrowing evidence to which the hon. Member referred merely underlines the critical importance of moving towards a sustainable ceasefire and, in the immediate future, securing the humanitarian pauses that we are all seeking.

Rachael Maskell: While the Government should be leading the call for an immediate, complete and permanent ceasefire, what assurances has  the Minister, the Foreign Secretary or indeed the Prime Minister had that actors in the conflict will abide by today’s UN Security Council resolution, should it pass?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Member is asking me to prophesy about the future. Let us see if we can secure a UN Security Council resolution, and then we can move to trying to ensure that everyone honours it.

Matt Western: The shooting of Yotam Haim, Alon Shamriz and Samer Talalka—the three Israeli hostages who were carrying a white flag—as well as the attack on the Catholic church, belie the IDF’s claim that its actions are precise and intelligence-led. There is now strong evidence, I believe, of war crimes. I accept what the Minister has said about calling for a ceasefire, and I hope that we get an immediate ceasefire ahead of Christmas. Will he help me with how two families I have can get out of Gaza: Alaa Safi, who has lost 50 members of her family, and Enas Alaloul, who have nothing to do with Hamas?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Member makes an important intervention about the humanitarian effects of what is going on in Gaza. But, as I have repeatedly said, that underlines the importance of the Government working day and night to try to deliver these pauses and then a sustainable ceasefire.

Rachel Hopkins: May I impress on the Minister my constituents’ strength of support on the need for an immediate ceasefire, not only because of the starvation we are beginning to see and the children being treated with washing-up liquid and vinegar, but because 93 health workers have reportedly been detained, with no information on their whereabouts or wellbeing? Will the Minister give the Government’s assessment of the ability of the International Committee of the Red Cross to access health workers detained by Israeli forces?

Andrew Mitchell: The position is unclear, but the Government’s focus is very clear: it is to deliver the humanitarian pauses that we require in order to secure the necessary humanitarian support inside Gaza.

Sam Tarry: Jabalia refugee camp, Shifa hospital, Omari mosque and the Holy Family church are all civilian targets that have been obliterated by Israeli bombing or attacked by IDF snipers. There are nearly 18,000 dead and nearly 1.5 million displaced. UN experts have warned that we are at risk of witnessing a genocide in the making in Gaza. Will the Minister now use all diplomatic measures, including sanctions, to compel Israel and Hamas to end alleged breaches of international law while also at last demanding a permanent, immediate ceasefire alongside the release of those hostages?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Member will have heard what I have said about the plausibility of an immediate and permanent ceasefire. On his point about the civilians who are in such extreme jeopardy, he will be aware that Hamas quite deliberately use civilians to defend themselves and for military purposes. That makes the situation all the more difficult to reach the progress that we all want to see.

Jeff Smith: I hope that the Government can support a UN resolution today, but we desperately need an immediate ceasefire, to protect the civilian population in Gaza and to create the space for dialogue for a permanent ceasefire. Once we get to that point, how does the Minister see the UK’s role in getting to the political solution on the ground and, in particular, ensuring that the Palestinian population is not permanently displaced?

Andrew Mitchell: I share with the hon. Member a view that a United Nations Security Council resolution is urgently needed, and I very much hope that it will be in a form that we can support shortly. With regard to a ceasefire, he will have heard what has been said from both the Government and the Opposition Front Benches about the plausibility of achieving that. With regard to the role that Britain will play once the sky clears and there is an opportunity for a political track, the Foreign Secretary is in the region today trying to advance precisely that.

Kerry McCarthy: It has been seven days since the American President warned that Israel was in danger of losing global support because of its indiscriminate bombing in Gaza. That warning clearly has not been heeded. I note what the Minister has said about no impunity for war crimes, but that comes after the event. What signal will the UN send today to Israel to say that the line has clearly been crossed, we cannot support it, and we do not condone what it has been doing in Gaza?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Lady is right to say that there have been far too many civilian casualties in this fighting and that a more surgical approach is required. That is very much what the Prime Minister and the British Government have called for. We will continue to work towards a more sustainable cessation of hostilities and a sustainable ceasefire in the way that I have described.

Patrick Grady: The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office website advises people who might be travelling to Ukraine:
“If you travel to Ukraine to fight, or to assist others engaged in the war, your activities may amount to offences under UK legislation and you could be prosecuted on your return to the UK.”
Why is there not a similar statement on the advice for travel to Israel?

Andrew Mitchell: Because the two situations are not analogous.

Richard Foord: I quote from a newspaper opinion column:
“Even if Israel manages to destroy Hamas, a similar movement will undoubtedly emerge from the destitution and despair of the Gaza Strip.”
That was written by the then Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, during Israel’s Operation Protective Edge in August 2014. What are the British Government doing to prevent the recurrence of the terrible violence we are seeing in another decade?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Member is right to point to the fact that this dispute has continued down the years. He will also have noticed that it was after the crisis of  the Yom Kippur war that progress was made politically, and then again after the first intifada. We must all hope that after this dreadful situation moves into a sustainable ceasefire, the political track is once again able to grip these issues and ensure that a brighter future awaits. It is an issue that has poisoned the well of international opinion in the middle east and deserves resolution so that the children of those involved today can enjoy a better life than their parents.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for his response, and for and his and the Government’s stance on Hamas, which are clearly a terrorist group. They are the baby killers, rapists and killers of innocent people—not just Israelis but innocent Palestinians. That is who Hamas are, and they must be destroyed. Can the Minister confirm, on day 74 of Israel’s response to the Hamas terrorist murders, whether he believes that we have been able to exert any meaningful influence to bring positive steps forward for the release of the hostages?

Andrew Mitchell: We are doing everything we possibly can to get the hostages out. The hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot give the House a running commentary on that. In respect of his earlier comments, I thank him for his humanity and his wisdom. I wish a happy Christmas to him, you, Mr Speaker, and the whole House.

Ukraine

John Healey: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to make a statement on the war in Ukraine.

James Cartlidge: Since the Minister for the Armed Forces last updated the House on 28 November, the situation on the ground has remained largely unchanged. Ukraine has been fortifying its border with Belarus with dragon’s teeth, razor wire and anti-tank ditches, and is pivoting to a more defensive posture following Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s call on 1 December for rapid fortification across the front.
On 12 December, Kyivstar, Ukraine’s largest mobile network operator, suffered a cyber-attack. The incident is likely one of the highest impact disruptive cyber-attacks on Ukrainian networks since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion. The Russian air force is highly likely to have carried out the first use of the AS-24 Killjoy air-launched ballistic missile since August 2023. Killjoy has almost certainly had a mixed combat debut. Many of its launches have likely missed their intended targets, while Ukraine has also succeeded in shooting down examples of the supposedly undefeatable system.
We will continue to support priority areas for Ukraine in the coming months, including air defence and hardening critical national infrastructure sites. Our foundational supply of critical artillery ammunition continues. Most recently, on 11 December, the Defence Secretary announced that the UK will lead a new maritime capability coalition alongside Norway, delivering ships and vehicles to strengthen Ukraine’s ability to operate at sea. This represents a step change in the UK’s support for Ukraine in both defending against Russia’s illegal and unprovoked invasion and developing Ukraine’s future maritime capability. The new coalition will deliver long-term support to Ukraine, including training, equipment, and infrastructure to bolster security in the Black sea. We could not be more clear: as the Prime Minster has said, we are in this for as much and as long as it takes.
The maritime capability coalition initiative reinforces our collective long-term commitment to Ukraine and provides a permanent mechanism through which we can support the development of Ukraine’s maritime capability. Agreed during recent meetings of the 50-nation-strong Ukraine defence contact group, it forms part of a series of capability coalitions to strengthen Ukraine’s operations in other domains including on land and in the air. On 13 and 14 December, the Ministry of Defence, along with the Department of Business and Trade, successfully conducted the first UK trade mission to Kyiv since the invasion in 2022. The mission enabled discussions with and between UK and Ukraine officials and industry on opportunities for long-term co-operation, and resulted in tangible agreements for industry.
The UK has committed £4.6 billion of military support to date, as we continue to donate significant amounts of ammunition and matériel from our own stocks, as well as those purchased from across the globe. In addition, we have trained more than 52,000 soldiers since 2015. The UK and our allies have been clear that we will not stand by as the Kremlin persists in its disregard for the sovereignty of Ukraine and international law. That  includes the recognition of Ukraine’s sovereignty over its territorial waters, which is established in accordance with international maritime law.

John Healey: I thank the Minister for his words but, with due respect, the House should hear from the Defence Secretary himself. He may have urgent business today—we understand that—but he has been in post for four months and he has not made an oral statement in Parliament on Ukraine, from the top, to reassure Ukrainians that Britain will stand with them for as long as it takes to win, to warn President Putin that Britain remains resolute in confronting Russian aggression, and to explain to people why the defence of the UK starts in Ukraine. This is a war in Europe. Last week, nearly two years on, Putin declared that his goals have not changed. If he prevails, he will not stop at Ukraine. That is why the Government have had, and will continue to have, Labour’s fullest support for military aid to Ukraine and for reinforcing NATO allies.
Ukrainians face another winter with war, and another tough year beyond. Yesterday, a top general said that they face ammunition shortages across the entire frontline. At the very time Ukraine needs unfailing support, the UK is falling behind other nations: no new UK weaponry since July; no UK military funding for next year; and no 2024 plan for Ukraine. The UK is united behind Ukraine. I am proud of the UK leadership on Ukraine, but I want to be proud in six months’ time. When will the military aid funding for next year be agreed? Will it be multi-year? When will the international fund for Ukraine commit the half a billion pounds so far unspent? How many next-generation light anti-tank weapons have been produced under the new contract signed 12 months ago, and delivered to Ukraine? Another two minehunter ships were announced last week for Ukraine—the same ships pledged by Ministers in June 2021.
Madam Deputy Speaker, 2024 will be a critical year for Ukraine. We must have the Defence Secretary himself in the House to set out the UK’s plans—military, economic and diplomatic—to support Ukraine through 2024 and beyond.

James Cartlidge: I am extremely proud to stand here and defend the Government’s very strong record in supporting Ukraine. The Secretary of State gave a very important statement yesterday on the future of UK fast jet capability, and the trade mission that we sent to Ukraine last week makes it timely that I stand here now. The public understand the huge amount of support that we have given, and it is important to emphasise that we now need to move to the next phase—the long term—of helping Ukraine’s industry to support itself, working closely with Ukrainian partners. As procurement Minister, I have that as an absolute priority, as demonstrated in the last week by the trade mission.
On the right hon. Gentleman’s other points, I totally agree about the risk of Putin prevailing, and I am grateful for the cross-party support. On ammunition shortages, he specifically asked about NLAWs. Of course, that is not the only anti-tank weapon we have sent. In total, we have sent around 10,000 anti-tank weapons to Ukraine, plus about 4 million small-round ammo, 300,000 artillery shells, 20 AS90 self-propelled guns, a squadron of tanks and a huge amount of air defence systems and uncrewed systems. The list goes on: 82,000 helmets, and  training for over 50,000 Ukrainians in the UK to enable them to go back and fight for the freedom of their country. I am very proud of that record, but the Prime Minister has been clear: we know there is much more to do.

Julian Lewis: I agree with my hon. Friend that we have sent a great deal of ammunition to Ukraine. The question is, have we been able to replace that ammunition, especially in the context of a war that seems to be attritional and likely to go on for a considerable amount of time?

James Cartlidge: My right hon. Friend is an expert in these matters, and always asks pertinent questions. My constituents strongly support the effort we have undertaken to give all the weapons we have to Ukraine—not all gifted from this country, it should be stressed. Equally, they want us to replenish those stocks. That is why we have already signed contracts for NLAWs and lightweight multi-role missiles, and we have already taken delivery of the Archer 6x6, which is the interim replacement for the AS90 gun. It happens in parallel. We have to keep supporting Ukraine but, absolutely, we put the additional money from the budget to support the replenishment of our own armed forces.

Dave Doogan: We are approaching dangerous territory with regards to the west’s ongoing support for those who fight for our democracy and the rule of law in the trenches and farm buildings of eastern Ukraine. We see Putin’s plan to sit and wait while democracies lose interest in Ukraine come to fruition, in politically motivated budget wrangling in Washington, in the clientelism of Hungarian President Viktor Orbán, in the exhausted replenishment efforts of the west’s defence industry and in the vagaries of the west’s media cycle. The west must act decisively and with endurance to thwart Putin’s plan, and the SNP stands fully behind the Government’s actions to deliver on that priority.
The Foreign Secretary has confirmed that the UK will continue to support Ukraine in the defence against Putin. What further details can this Defence Minister provide about that, and about what discussions the Secretary of State for Defence—it is a pity that he is not here—has had with the Foreign Secretary about the continued support for Ukraine? What will it look like, and what will be the scale of it? Finally, can the UK Government encourage, through some means, the Government and the Prime Minister of Hungary to lift their block on EU funding for Ukraine?

James Cartlidge: I believe that until recently the hon. Gentleman was a member of the Defence Committee, and I am grateful for that support from him and from his party. He asked a number of questions, but I think the most important was the one about what we could say about the support we are providing for Ukraine right now.
In my opening remarks I emphasised the importance of the maritime capability coalition, and Members will be more than aware of the importance of the Black sea and getting grain out of Ukraine. Since that corridor reopened, some 5 million tonnes of grain have been exported, and it is extremely important for us to retain that. We should also recognise that Ukraine has had significant success in pushing the Russian fleet eastwards to enable that to happen. However, we must not be  complacent, which is why we are providing this naval support. We and Norway are joint leaders of the MCC, and when I visited Norway last week, it was clear that we are very strong naval partners because of the shared threat to our home waters that we face from Russian submarines, but we will keep on looking at what more we can do, and I am grateful to Members in all parts of the House for their support.

Jeremy Quin: In response to the question from the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), my hon. Friend referred to UK companies helping Ukraine to build out its own defence capabilities. That is obviously to be welcomed, but can he also reassure us that the work we are doing to resupply Ukraine is an opportunity we are seizing to broaden and deepen UK defence capabilities, so that in the worst-case scenarios we can enhance our own ability to restock ourselves and our allies?

James Cartlidge: It is a pleasure to take a question from my right hon. Friend. He was an excellent Minister for Defence Procurement and an excellent Minister generally, and I always enjoyed the many Cobra meetings that were overseen by him, but he speaks with equal strength from the Back Benches, and his question is very important. When it comes to opportunities for future industrial production in Ukraine, I would like to see an opportunity for us to work together for our mutual benefit to create ordnance not just for Ukraine but for ourselves, because maximising that demand signal is the best way in which to secure the strongest possible military industrial base.

John Spellar: I readily acknowledge the support that we have given to Ukraine to try and ensure that Putin cannot win. That is an objective shared in all parts of the House, but the scale of the conflict requires more, especially in the form of artillery and munitions. Why did it take the Government more than a year to sign the contract for new capacity for shell production, not only for Ukraine but to restock our own supplies?

James Cartlidge: The right hon. Gentleman is entirely right, and he speaks with experience as a former Defence Minister, but we have signed the contract on the 155 shell, as the Prime Minister announced last July. That contract sits alongside many others, including the lightweight multi-role missile and STARStreak contracts. This is, of course, for our own defence, but, as I have said, we recently delivered the 300,000th artillery shell to Ukraine, and we should be proud of that effort.

Bob Blackman: It is clearly very important that we support our friends in Ukraine, but it is equally important that we support our NATO allies in the region, such as Romania. My hon. Friend has mentioned the support being given in the Black sea. The port of Constanta is vital to the export of Ukrainian grain and other produce, so may I ask what extra support the Government are giving to Romania to ensure that this vital sea lane is kept free?

James Cartlidge: My hon. Friend has made an excellent point. I recently had the pleasure of meeting my Romanian counterpart in the main building at the Ministry of Defence, and we spoke about a number of issues. Like us, the Romanians are absolutely committed to supporting Ukraine. I think that Romania is one of the countries that are joining the MCC, but I will check that and write to my hon. Friend. We need to work closely with allies on these wider strategic issues.

Tulip Siddiq: Last month I was concerned to note that the Chancellor barely mentioned Ukraine in his autumn statement, and since then he has made hardly any new commitments to supporting its people. The Government and the Opposition have stood shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine, and the UK must not waver in its leadership on this issue. Can the Minister reassure me—and, more important, can he reassure the families who have come from Ukraine and settled in my constituency—that the UK will be committed to supporting Ukraine in the coming months?

James Cartlidge: Absolutely: I can send that message to the families—and, by the way, the hon. Lady has also made an important point in reminding us of the huge generosity that we have shown by taking in so many of those families, a number of whom are in my constituency. I can certainly reassure her, on the basis of what has happened literally in the last week. We should be judged not by words but by action, having created a maritime coalition that will support the crucial strategic interests of the Black sea. I am talking about access to the Black sea, security, and the ability to get grain in and out. We have also continued to provide those crucial weapons, including air defence systems.

Bob Seely: I congratulate the Government on their global leadership, which we all recognise, but a couple of matters concern me. First, the importance of supplying basic kit has been stressed by Members on both sides of the House. The supply of 155 and 155-2 shells is critical, and it needs a long-term plan. It is great that we have supplied 300,000 shells, but the Russians are using up to 15,000 shells a day, and the Ukrainians are responding with between 3,000 and 7,000, so this is a massive artillery war. Secondly, Putin’s regime is gaining ground politically because the Russians are holding ground while they target western support. So the long-term supply is critical physically, but it is also critical in terms of the message we send that we are not cutting and running but are in for the long haul.

James Cartlidge: My hon. Friend, who of course served in intelligence, makes some excellent points. On the particular importance of artillery, I have already spoken about the volume of shells and the guns that have been gifted, but I should add the spare parts to support them, which are easy to forget about. I spoke earlier about the Ukraine defence contact group. I recently attended a Teams call with all my fellow Ministers involved in that, under US leadership. Country after country listed its latest gifting, including artillery and many other munitions. However, my hon. Friend is right to say that we need a long-term plan. I think there is huge determination across the west and all our allies to continue this effort. Of course it is challenging, but  that is why we need to bring in that additional element of ensuring that Ukrainian industry can start to rise to the occasion.

Andrew Slaughter: The language from the Government remains robust, but the details of practical help, military and otherwise, are lacking. There are 12 days left of this year, and we still do not have a full schedule for what aid the Government will provide for 2024. When can we expect to have it?

James Cartlidge: I respect the hon. Gentleman, with whom I spent time at the Ministry of Justice, but he has suggested that this is “talk”. We are one of the key reasons why Ukraine is still a free country. It has regained about 50% of the land taken by Russia, and we played a decisive role in that. I know that there is strong consensus on keeping it going, but I hope that that can be recognised. I have already listed the enormous amount of ordnance that we have provided: 300,000 artillery shells and 4 million rounds of ammunition. Of course we want to keep on doing that, and we are. I have also explained how we will be supporting Ukraine in the naval domain, which I believe will be crucial.

Louie French: My constituency has warmly welcomed many Ukrainians to our community, and we are supportive of the UK Government’s ongoing efforts to back Ukraine and our NATO allies. Can my hon. Friend update the House on the support for Ukraine’s own military industrial capacity?

James Cartlidge: That too is an excellent question. I spoke earlier about the visit last week. Why is that so important? It is important because, as I said, we know there is huge support across the country, and indeed across Parliament, for the efforts that we have undertaken to support Ukraine. However, we now need to help its industry to support it. I think that our defence industry, which is world-leading, can play a key role in that, and I am very pleased that major UK primes were out there last week, already starting to sign agreements with their Ukrainian counterparts.

Rushanara Ali: In July this year, I had the opportunity to visit Ukraine with Siobhan’s Trust and the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). It was clear that many of the soldiers were being injured and were not receiving enough support, and also that training was a huge issue. I realise that there are sensitivities surrounding what western countries can do when it comes to providing training, but can the Minister explain what kind of help is being provided for soldiers, in terms of recovery but also to ensure that they have proper support so that they are not going into conflict—into war—unprepared?

James Cartlidge: The hon. Lady asks an excellent question on training. It was one of my most insightful visits as a Defence Minister early on to go to Salisbury plain and see the Irish Guards, together with our New Zealand and Australian colleagues, training Ukrainians who, let us be frank, would have some weeks of training then go out to experience pretty severe trench warfare. I am proud of the role we played in that, but she is right to say that a crucial part of it is the medical element.  I believe that we have trained around 65 medical personnel, but I will check that detail and write to her, because this is important.

Mark Logan: Recently the United States has been wobbling over funding. What assessments do our Government make of that and of how we engage in Ukraine? This is the second Christmas that many Ukrainians will be experiencing in a time not in peace. Could the Minister send the Government’s gratitude to organisations such as the Ukrainian Social and Cultural Centre in Bolton, headed by Yaroslaw Tymchyshyn, during what should be a joyous time for families around the world but is a difficult time for the Ukrainian community?

James Cartlidge: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to champion the community groups supporting Ukraine. On his other point about the US, I can only speak from my own experience. I referred to the contact group meeting we had on Teams recently. Secretary Austin led that from the beginning to the end, emphasising all the way through that as far as he was concerned, the US was in it for the long haul. I believe that that is the case. This is about freedom. Freedom is at stake here. We have fought this far to protect it, and we have to keep doing that job if we are to defend freedom across our continent.

Valerie Vaz: In August this year, the then Defence Secretary said that he would publish the action plan for Ukraine in 2023. Will it be published before the end of the year?

James Cartlidge: I simply say to the right hon. Lady, as I have been saying throughout, that we are delivering action every week in Ukraine. The amount of ordnance we have supplied and continue to supply—particularly in terms of air defence, which is now increasingly crucial—is huge. I have listed the many numbers. Some of it, of course, we cannot talk about. There are technologies that we are testing out there, ensuring that our munitions are successful. What I can say is that if we look at the work of the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, for example—as I say, I cannot talk about the detail—we can see that it has had a huge bearing on the impact of what we have donated into theatre.

Sammy Wilson: I welcome the support that the Government have given, and indeed the lead that they have taken, in ensuring that while others were dragging their feet we gave support to Ukraine in its vital defence of freedom. As it is clear that the Russians are now settling in for a long war, consolidating the ground that they have taken and hoping to sit out the west’s opposition to their invasion, can the Minister give us some indication whether he is ensuring that we have the physical capacity to continue our support and that we are making the necessary financial commitments? What plans does he have to launch a diplomatic offensive to ensure that people stay in line on giving support to Ukraine?

James Cartlidge: We are trying to do all those things. I should like to put on record that it was an absolute pleasure to visit the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency to launch Armed Forces Week back in the summer. I know that he is a passionate supporter of our armed  forces and of our efforts in Ukraine, and that he shares my pride in the provision of NLAW, which is made in Belfast. He is absolutely right on all those counts, and on the diplomatic one in particular. There’s huge unity in the west. We all know that the stakes are incredibly high, but we now have to persist. We are all in it for the long haul.

Justin Madders: It is clearly Putin’s strategy to sit this out as long as is necessary in the hope that Ukraine’s allies lose the political will to provide the support that has been there so far. In that regard, the Foreign Secretary indicated to the other place earlier this month that he was prepared to increase the amount of funding available to Ukraine next year. Is the Minister able to confirm that that is indeed the case and tell us how much additional funding will be in place?

James Cartlidge: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that these matters are still under discussion. The Prime Minister has been clear about the strength of our commitment, and I go back to the previous point made by the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), which backs this up. A huge way in which we have ensured support and funding for Ukraine is not just from what we have provided but by being a convenor of an international effort. We have played a decisive role in that, but of course there is more to do.

Gavin Newlands: Those of us on the SNP Benches remain steadfast in our support for Ukraine in its defence against its unprovoked Russian aggressor. Ukraine has been given substantial support by a great many countries, particularly the UK and the USA, but as we have heard, that support is under threat. How concerned is the Minister about the rhetoric on Ukraine aid that is coming from the US Republicans driven by Donald Trump, who is too busy praising Vladimir Putin, and about what that means for the US’s aid to Ukraine in the long term?

James Cartlidge: I respect the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but I hear nothing but total support for Ukraine from the US Administration. They recognise the strategic issues. Let us be clear about this. To all voices in the US and elsewhere, this is not just about Ukraine. As the shadow Secretary of State said earlier, we should not underestimate what the impact would have been, had Russia succeeded early on in terms of other strategic issues, not least China and so on. We have to see the big picture, and that means standing together as allies.

Kevan Jones: The Minister is clear about the support for Ukraine from the UK, but does he agree that it is important that we keep full support from our NATO allies? Two weeks ago at the transatlantic NATO forum, I and other delegates were concerned about the lukewarm response from certain members of Congress on continuing support. What more can we do to get the message across to members of Congress that the commitment is not only solid here but also backed by cash, with around $133 billion coming from the UK and the European institutions?

James Cartlidge: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman; this follows on from the previous point. As I said, when I look at the US I see steadfast support in the Administration in terms of the enormous amount of munitions they have provided and in many other ways, including financially, and I hope that that can continue. My observation from the contact group was that, day to day, they are leading that and ensuring that we, with them, continue to convene other nations. But the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: we all need to be in it for the long haul.

Tan Dhesi: The Minister obfuscated and did not properly answer the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), so let me try again. In a bid to provide long-term certainty of UK support for our friends in Ukraine to help repel Russia’s invasion, the Defence Secretary’s predecessor last August promised a 2023 action plan for Ukraine, but it is still nowhere to be seen and there are less than two weeks of 2023 left. So, Minister, why has this action plan not been published and when will it be?

James Cartlidge: I was not obfuscating; I was simply referring to the actual actions we have been delivering on the ground, day in, day out, in Ukraine right from the beginning and before—after all, we have been training Ukrainians since 2014. So yes, we are delivering action on the ground and it has helped to keep Ukraine a free country, largely.

Matt Western: The signals that we send from this place are obviously important, as I am sure the Minister will agree, and in the messages that we are hearing from the EU and the US there is perhaps some wavering going on. I come back to the previous question and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South. Will the Minister commit today to publishing the action plan for Ukraine before the end of this year?

James Cartlidge: Well of course, this is the last sitting day. I would simply say—[Interruption.] I might sound like a stuck record, but this is so important. In this game, what matters is what we actually do on the ground. We have just announced a maritime coalition. We continue to send air defence systems, which are incredibly important. We have sent 300,000 artillery shells, thousands and thousands of helmets, 4 million pieces of small arms ammo. This is what matters. This is the action that delivers. We know there is more to do, and we are going to keep playing that role.

Richard Foord: The Russian energy giant Gazprom earned £39 million last year from the North sea Sillimanite gas field, which is partly underneath UK waters. Gazprom is majority owned by the Russian state and is Russia’s largest taxpayer. Will the Minister talk to his counterparts in the Department for Business and Trade to avoid a situation where UK defence is giving generous military aid while the new Office of Trade Sanctions Implementation overlooks the Russian state funding of its aggression from the proceeds of the sale of North sea gas?

James Cartlidge: I am happy to look into that further.

Anna McMorrin: Two years in and the hardship and devastation continue for the people of Ukraine, especially as we enter the harsh winter months. Western officials have repeatedly assessed that Russian forces are currently firing artillery at a rate five to seven times greater than their Ukrainian counterparts. What more are the Government doing to ensure an adequate supply of ammunition for Ukraine to win this war?

James Cartlidge: The hon. Lady is absolutely right to talk about the issues arising as we move into winter, which obviously brings its own challenges. I have spoken about the significant amount of ordnance supplied to date. As she knows, we do not talk about the specifics of how it arrives in country. Needless to say, we work strongly with our allies and, of course, with the Ukrainian armed forces. The key point is that we continue to work strongly on supplying munitions into Ukraine, but our trade mission was one of the most important developments because we now have to focus on helping Ukrainian industry to manufacture its own arms. We want to do that jointly with Ukraine. We have a strong track record of world-leading defence businesses, which is part of the key to this.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for his positive response. No one, inside or outside this House, can doubt the commitment of the United Kingdom Government and Ministers to helping Ukraine.
As the hustle and bustle of Christmas is upon us, it is easy for us to forget that Ukraine is still at war and holding its own against Russian aggression. Can the Minister update the House on how families with children are receiving aid and education to ensure that we do not have a lost generation of young adults with no learning and no vocational training?

James Cartlidge: As ever, we save the best for last. It is always a pleasure to take questions from the hon. Gentleman, who always speaks with such passion and compassion. He is absolutely right about this important issue. We have been talking about financial support and, as he will be aware, the totality of our support to Ukraine—not just military aid but humanitarian aid—is £9.3 billion. Of course we need to focus on the humanitarian side but, ultimately, I feel most proud of our contribution when I imagine what would have happened if Ukraine had been totally conquered. That does not bear thinking about.

Deputy Speaker’s Statement

Eleanor Laing: We are about to proceed to the statement on housing. Before I call the Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety to make the statement, I must say to the House that Mr Speaker is seriously concerned that the ministerial code may have been broken.
It will be obvious to the House that the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is not here to make the statement, which is not unusual. The Minister is here, and we welcome him, but I remind the House of the following provisions of the ministerial code. In paragraph 9.1:
“When Parliament is in session, the most important announcements of Government policy should be made in the first instance, in Parliament.”
In paragraph 9.3:
“Every effort should be made to avoid leaving significant announcements to the last day before a recess.”
The House may not be aware, but Mr Speaker is aware, that the Secretary of State held a televised press conference just after 12 o’clock today—while this House was sitting but while it was still dealing with questions, as we always do between 11.30 am and 12.30 pm—and that just after 12.30 pm, while the House was dealing with questions and some two hours before the Minister came to the House, the Secretary of State made this statement to journalists.
Several Members have, not surprisingly, made very reasonable complaints to Mr Speaker about this very serious discourtesy to the House, and it really must be noted that it is not a trivial matter. A senior Secretary of State made an important policy announcement on television, and now the Minister—I place no blame upon the Minister, whom we welcome to the House—is here two hours later. This is a gross discourtesy to this House.

John Spellar: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Eleanor Laing: I cannot take a point of order until after the statement. I think it would be best to leave points of order, unless they relate absolutely directly to what I have just said.

John Spellar: It does, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Eleanor Laing: Then I will take the right hon. Gentleman’s point of order.

John Spellar: Does it not show contempt, not only for Members of Parliament and this House but for our constituents, on whose behalf we speak, that the Secretary of State made this statement to journalists rather than to this House?

Eleanor Laing: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I hope that is the point I have just made to the House. I take it that he agrees with what I, on behalf of Mr Speaker, have just said. It is a gross contempt.

Several hon. Members: rose—
We will take points of order after the statement, but it is only fair that we hear the Minister.

Long-term Plan for Housing

Lee Rowley: I apologise on behalf of the Department for the points you have just highlighted, Madam Deputy Speaker.
With permission, I would like to make a statement on the Government’s commitment to house building and the planning policy reforms we are making today.
This Government want to build more homes in the right places, more quickly, more beautifully and more sustainably. We know that the right way to deliver this is through a reformed planning system. Today, the Secretary of State and I are laying out our plan for that reform, and we are clear that it is only through up-to-date local plans that local authorities can deliver for communities, protect the land and the assets that matter most, and create the conditions for more homes to be delivered.
Having plans in place unlocks land for homes, for hospitals and general practitioner centres, for schools, for power grid connections and more. It lays the foundations for our economic growth and the levelling up of our communities. The first change we are making today is to update the national planning policy framework. We consulted on a series of proposals last December and received more than 26,000 responses, which we have worked through in detail.
The resulting update builds on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 and delivers on the intent set out by the Secretary of State last year, and it does so in a way that will promote building the right homes in the right places with the right infrastructure, which will ensure that the environment is protected and give local people a greater say on where and where not to place new, beautiful development.
I will now summarise the key changes being made to the framework today, and hon. Members should refer to the consultation response and the framework itself for the published policies. First, the standard method for assessing local housing need figures has sometimes been difficult to apply in some areas, and has been blind to the exceptional characteristics of local communities. The new NPPF makes it clear that the outcome of the standard method is an advisory starting point in plan making for establishing an area’s housing requirement.
The revised NPPF also now provides more clarity on what may constitute exceptional circumstances for using an alternative method to assess housing need. The framework is also clear that the urban uplift should be accommodated in the urban areas in which it is applied, and should not be exported unless there is a voluntary cross-boundary agreement in place. New homes are most desperately needed in urban areas, so it is essential that city councils plan properly for local people.
Secondly, given the importance of the green belt to so many, the new NPPF is clear that there is generally no requirement on local authorities to review or alter green belt boundaries. Unlike Labour’s plan to concrete over the countryside, we will not impose top-down release of green-belt land against the wishes of local communities. Where a relevant local planning authority chooses to conduct a review, existing national policy will continue to expect that green-belt boundaries are altered only where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced  and justified, and this should only be through the preparation or updating of plans. The Government are making no changes to the rules that govern what can and cannot be built on green-belt land, but we are clarifying in guidance where brownfield development can occur on the green belt, provided that the openness of the green belt is not harmed.
Thirdly, the Government are clear that the character of an existing area should be respected, particularly in the historic suburbs of our great towns and cities. The new NPPF therefore recognises that there may be situations in plan making where significant uplifts in urban residential densities would be inappropriate, as they would be wholly out of character with that existing area. In these cases, authorities need not plan for such development. That will apply where there is a design code that is adopted, or will be adopted, as part of the local plan. I know the shadow Minister will sympathise with this change, given that he recently opposed 1,500 new homes in his constituency due to the impact on Greenwich’s local character.
Fourthly, where an up-to-date plan is in place—a plan less than five years old—and contained a deliverable five-year supply of land when examined by the inspector, authorities will no longer be required to update that supply annually. This change provides those authorities with additional protection from the presumption in favour of sustainable development. We are also fully removing what are known as the 5% and 10% buffers, which could be applied to an authority’s housing land supply. A transitional arrangement will ensure that decision making on live applications is not affected, thus avoiding disruption to applications in the system. For authorities that have not yet passed examination but are either at examination, regulation 18 or regulation 19 stage, and have both a policy map and proposed allocations, there will be a two-year grace period in which they need to demonstrate only a four-year housing land supply for decision making. That is a strong incentive for councils to now do the right thing and agree a local plan.
Fifthly, local communities that have worked hard to put neighbourhood plans in place should not be penalised for the failure of their council to ensure an up-to-date local plan. The new NPPF therefore extends protection for neighbourhood plans from speculative development from two to five years, where those plans allocate at least one housing site. The updated framework also gives greater support to self-build, custom-build and community-led housing, and to encouraging the delivery of older people’s housing, including retirement housing, housing with care and care homes.
Next, the NPPF cements the role of beauty and placemaking in the planning system; it now expressly uses the word “beautiful” in relation to “well-designed places”. It also now requires greater “visual clarity” on design requirements set out in planning conditions and supports gentle density through the promotion of mansard roof development. Finally, the new NPPF also strengthens protections for agricultural land, by being clear that consideration should be given to the availability of agricultural land for food production in development decisions. The NPPF also supports the Government’s energy security strategy, by giving significant weight to the importance of energy efficiency in the adaptation of existing buildings, while protecting heritage.
With the updated NPPF now in place, the other reforms we are making today are focused on setting higher expectations for performance. Those who operationalise the system—local authorities, the Planning Inspectorate and statutory consultees—must live up to their responsibilities. To support that, we are taking action on four fronts. First, we will ensure greater transparency, because exposing what is really going on in a system sparks action. So we will publish a new local authority performance dashboard in 2024, and pull back the veil on the use of extension of time agreements, which in too many instances are concealing poor performance.
Secondly, we have been providing, and will continue to provide, additional financial support. That includes the increased planning fees that went live a fortnight ago, as well as a range of funds to tackle backlogs and improve capability. Thirdly, we will tackle slow processes, with Sam Richards leading a review into the statutory consultee system and a greater focus from the Planning Inspectorate where planning committees are seeing their decisions overturned on appeal.
Finally, we will intervene where we need to. The Secretary of State has issued a direction to seven of the worst authorities in terms of plan making, requiring them to publish a plan timetable within 12 weeks of the publication of the new NPPF. Should they fail, we will consider further intervention. We are also designating two additional authorities for their decision-making performance and we will review the thresholds for designation to make sure to make sure we are not letting off the hook authorities that should be doing better.
We are also taking action in London, because the homes needed by the capital are simply not being built and opportunities for urban brownfield regeneration go begging as a result of the Mayor’s anti-housing policy and approach. A review launched today will identify where changes to policy could speed up the delivery of much-needed homes. If directing change in London becomes necessary, this Government will do that.
In designing these reforms we have aimed to facilitate desirable development, constrained only by appropriate protections. That is a balance I am confident we have struck.

Eleanor Laing: I call the shadow Minister.

Matthew Pennycook: I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. Nothing screams long-term housing plan quite like a statement from the 16th Housing Minister since 2010 outlining the fourth set of changes to the national planning policy framework in as many years. As ever with this Government, the reality in no way matches the rhetoric, as we see with the headline announcements made to the press—not this House—over the past 24 hours. Not only are they seemingly at odds with the Government’s stated wish to give local communities more of a say about the placement of new developments; the truth is that the ink will barely be dry on outline plans for the proposed expansion of Cambridge by the time the general election is called. The punitive and nakedly political interventions that Ministers are working up for London ahead of the mayoral election will, likewise, do nothing in practice to resolve the constraints that they  themselves have imposed on house building in the capital, not least by leaving industry completely in the dark when it comes to second staircase regulations for tall buildings, at a cost of thousands of new homes.
When it comes to meaningful support for small and medium-sized house builders, the Government have been talking, literally for years, about the various ways in which they need greater support while presiding over their continued decline. Far from unlocking a new generation of home building, as the Secretary of State has claimed, the detailed changes being made to the NPPF today will almost certainly further suppress collapsing house building rates. Let us be clear: although there have been minor tweaks, the changes being made are those that the Government, in their weakness, promised the so-called “Planning Concern Group” of Tory Back Benchers they would enact back in December last year in order to stave off a rebellion on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. That is precisely why the members of that group are so pleased with the ”compromise” they have secured today.
I have a number of detailed questions for the Minister, starting with the impact of these changes on overall housing supply. Whether it is the softening of land supply requirements or the listing of various local characteristics that would justify a deviation from the now only advisory standard method, can he confirm that the changes made to the NPPF, taken together, will give those local authorities that wish to take advantage of it the freedom to plan for less housing than their nominal local targets imply? If he disputes that that will be their effect, what technical evidence can he provide to demonstrate that these changes can be reconciled with a boost to housing delivery?
I turn to the Government’s 300,000 annual housing target, which the Secretary of State recommitted himself to today. How on earth does the Minister imagine that the changes that have been made to the rules around plan making will help the Government finally meet that target, particularly given that the arbitrary 35% urban uplift has been retained but the requirement for local planning authorities to try to meet it out of area in co-operation with their neighbours if they cannot do so alone has been removed? Can the Minister finally provide a convincing explanation of how and when the Government’s 300,000 homes a year target will be met? Or is it the case that it remains alive in name only, abandoned in practice even if not formally abolished?
Let me turn to local plan coverage. In many ways, the revised NPPF speaks to a planning framework that does not actually exist, because under this Government we have a local plan-led system in which only a minority of local authorities have up-to-date plans. According to the most recent figures, just 33% have local plans that have been adopted or reviewed within the past five years and only 10 new plans have been submitted for examination this year—in part, this is because of the chilling effect of the Government’s December 2022 concession. Yet only now, in the dying days of this Government, are Ministers seemingly getting a bit more serious about intervening to drive up coverage.
In The Times today, the Secretary of State announced a new three-month deadline for up-to-date local plans to be submitted. Will the Minister outline the thinking behind that timeframe and tell us what happens if multiple local authorities fail to meet the new March  deadline? In his Times interview, the Secretary of State suggested that local authorities that miss that deadline will have development forced on them and their powers to delay applications removed. Can the Minister tell us precisely how that would be achieved? The Secretary of State also suggested that recalcitrant councils will be stripped of their planning responsibilities. Can the Minister tell us who will take them on, given that the Planning Inspectorate clearly does not have the capacity to do so?
Finally, although it is the Government’s contention that the changes made today will boost local plan coverage, surely the Minister recognises that even if that is ultimately their effect, it will be at the cost of overall housing supply because it will entail the enactment of numerous plans that will not meet the needs of local communities in full. In short, isn’t the truth of the matter that today’s changes entail a deliberate shift from a plan-led system focused on making at least some attempt to meet housing need, to one geared toward providing only what the politics of any given area allow, with all the implications that entails for the housing crisis and economic growth?

Lee Rowley: I thank the Opposition spokesperson for his comments, which I will address in turn. He started by saying that this is the fourth time we have updated the guidance in the last few years. If his criticism is that we are willing to listen, be flexible and adaptable, and recognise the differences between his constituency of Greenwich and Woolwich and the constituencies of Government Back Benchers, then he is correct. We are willing to be flexible and adaptable, but we also recognise that we need to build more homes; we just want to ensure that they are built in the right places, which is exactly what today’s update seeks to do.
The difference between my party and that of the Opposition spokesperson is that we recognise the nuance in the discussion. Within the NPPF, we are trying to accommodate the fact that different areas and parts of the country have to be approached in different ways. While the policies of the hon. Gentleman’s party move backwards and forwards on different days of the week, we will continue to ensure that we build more homes—in the right place, with the right infrastructure and with the support of the community. In the long run, that will ensure that we make progress on housing in general.
The hon. Gentleman asked a question about freedom to plan. The housing needs assessment will be made by all councils, but councils can make a case if there is an exceptional circumstance that applies in their local area. If that were not possible, there would be no exceptions for any council, local authority or community anywhere, which would be completely unnuanced. However, on a macro level it remains the case that we will seek to build more houses. When councils have plans in place, they tend to deliver more houses than when such plans are not in place, so if we can get more plans in place, we will have the opportunity to build more homes that have the consent and support of the community in which they will be built.
The hon. Gentleman asked about urban uplift and the removal of co-operation with neighbours. We uplifted the targets and expectations on the basis that those houses would go into cities and would not be exported  into the countryside near cities, because the whole point was to acknowledge the infrastructure in those cities. There are schools in London that are closing because insufficient numbers of children are using them. We do not want to export housing elsewhere; we want to use that infrastructure—including transport links and educational establishments—as was intended when it was built.
This is not about whether we believe in a plan-led system or not—we clearly do. It is about the fact that this Government are getting on with the hard job of striking a balance, recognising the nuance and ensuring that more progress is being made, versus the Opposition stating that they want to build houses, but then voting against that happening in relation to nutrient neutrality. If they put their money where their mouth was and did what they say they will do, they would have the ability to stand up and make such arguments consistently. They do not and, as a result, I will not listen to them.

Eleanor Laing: I call the Father of the House.

Peter Bottomley: Before talking about the general policy, may I mention one small point? In paragraph 22 of his statement, the Minister talks about energy efficiency in heritage buildings. In Ambrose Place in Worthing—including at the house of one of my neighbours, where Harold Pinter lived—people are being told that they can have only secondary glazing, not double glazing, because it is in a conservation area. I hope that the Minister will talk with experts and say that double glazing is acceptable in reasonable circumstances, when people want to improve the energy efficiency of their homes.
On the general point, the Minister mentions the green belt. According to one calculation, there are 16 green belts in England, none of which is in East Sussex or West Sussex. I interpret his words as meaning “green gaps”: an expression used by the Secretary of State when he commented on the problems of Worthing, where every single bit of grass—the vineyards, the golf courses and the green fields—between Worthing and its neighbours to the west is subject to a planning application. It is important that the inspectors in his Department do not come along, as they did over the land north of Goring station, to Chatsmore Farm and the Goring Gap and say that even if Worthing built on every bit of lawn in town, it would not meet the full target, and yet give permission to build on that farm, which distinguishes Worthing from its neighbours.
It is also important to follow up the Minister’s words about intense development in the centre of villages, towns and cities, so that there are homes in high-density accommodation that elderly people can choose to live in, so that their family homes can be freed for families. The idea that most of the development on our green fields is for families is for the birds—it is for people on their second or third homes. I think people who are my sort of age ought to have the choice to live securely in high-thermal efficiency apartments, with services that do not require cars, and where they can live more easily and happily.

Lee Rowley: My hon. Friend makes an important point about energy efficiency, which I am happy to talk to him about in more detail. He is a champion for  Worthing West. I have family who live close to Worthing, and know the Goring Gap well. He makes a strong point about the importance of preserving character and ensuring communities build the right homes in the right places, while recognising that there are places where that should not be the case. I am always happy to talk to him about that.

Stephanie Peacock: This morning, the Secretary of State complained about house prices. If the Government are now rightly acknowledging the impact of spiralling mortgage payments on our constituencies, when will they apologise for the cause of that—their disastrous mini-Budget?

Lee Rowley: I am glad to see that the talking points have already started from the Opposition Back Benches. Despite choosing not to acknowledge it, the hon. Lady will know that interest rates have risen across the world, followed by a normalisation of interest rates for a number of months as a recognition of changed economic circumstances. If the hon. Lady and her party want to continue to make mischief and nuisance about that, it is their right to do so, but that does not accurately reflect what has happened. This Government will always try to work through those difficult situations and improve things for the people of this country.

Maria Miller: Will my hon. Friend confirm that over the past 12 months, in writing and at the Dispatch Box, Ministers have consistently said that when making a local plan, planning authorities will be able to take into account historically high house building levels by lowering the amount of housing they need to plan for? Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council has delivered exceptional levels of house building, with new homes for 150,000 people over the last five decades. How will the Government now make good on their year-long commitment to recognise Basingstoke’s almost unique position by doing whatever is needed to support the planning authority to successfully agree a revised local plan, with significantly lower overall house building figures because of the very high amount of house building over the last five decades?

Lee Rowley: My right hon. Friend is right that we consulted on that subject. In recognition of that consultation, we have chosen not to take forward the over-supply point at this time, but we are open to looking at it and reviewing it in the future. I accept Basingstoke’s particular circumstances, and have spoken to her separately about the recognition that there has been substantial building in Basingstoke over many decades. I am happy to talk to her about the exceptional circumstances provision and look at exactly how that may apply to Basingstoke.

Rachael Maskell: York is now the 15th least affordable place to live in the country. My constituents will have no confidence in what the Minister and the Secretary of State have set out today, because they have been waiting for a local plan for 76 years and counting. The sticking point has been with the Government Department, not the will of the Labour council. When will York receive its local plan, be able to protect the precious space we have and build the tenure of housing we need, as opposed to developers moving in and building luxury flats that no one can afford?

Lee Rowley: We are keen to ensure that local plans progress as quickly as possible, not just for York but for every other council that chooses to pursue the process, and we will continue to add support and capacity into the system to ensure that that happens.

Bob Blackman: In the written ministerial statement—as opposed to the oral statement we have just heard—there is a strong suggestion that there will be a review of London and the centre of London. One challenge we face in suburban London is that planning applications for high-density, very tall buildings—normally comprising units of two bedrooms, two bathrooms and one shared living space—are very suitable for young professionals, but totally useless for families. There is a shortage of family accommodation in outer London, and people would welcome more houses but not high-density flats.

Lee Rowley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: a balance must be struck. We will review the situation in London. We do not think that it is acceptable; we do not think that the Mayor has done his job in this regard and we will be reviewing that. We also recognise—I hope my comments earlier indicated this—that there are places in urban areas where character is very important, and we need to make sure that there is an appropriate balance in that regard.

Daisy Cooper: Liberal Democrat-led St Albans City and District Council is rightly pressing ahead with the development of its local plan, after the previous Conservative administration had its plan thrown out by the inspector. Two years ago, I wrote to the Government requesting additional funding so that we could accelerate our plan-making process, but the Government said no. I then requested that they allow us to charge developers the full cost of processing applications, but, even with all the tinkering, we are still not able to do that, and taxpayers in St Albans are still subsidising developers to the tune of £3 million a year to process their applications. Today the Government have asked our local council to publish a timetable in the next 12 weeks, but if Ministers and their officials used Google, they would find it on the website.
Apparently, Ministers have announced that the new protections apply to areas with local plans, but not to areas with draft local plans. That means that in St Albans, villages such as Colney Heath, which are besieged by inappropriate development, will not benefit from the protections. Will the Minister confirm whether our local district council and planning inspectors can firmly say no to inappropriate, speculative development, or is this just another empty promise from this Government?

Lee Rowley: I believe that the Liberal Democrats have been in charge of St Albans City and District Council since 2019. That is four and a half years of opportunity to put a local plan in place. It is on the Liberal Democrats for failing to do so. Perhaps the Liberal Democrats could explain whether, as part of that local plan, they will take their share of the 380,000 homes that their conference said they needed to build in the future.

Mark Francois: May I ask the Minister for a very clear answer on the controversial matter of housing targets? Basically, there are two ways of doing it: we can have mandatory  targets, where the man in Whitehall knows best and hands down to local authorities a target with which they have to comply whether or not it is sensible, or we can have advisory targets, where the Department can recommend a target, but if the locally elected councillors and the people whom they represent know that it is too high and can give strong reasons why—for instance, if their district or borough has a large amount of green belt—they can legitimately push back in their plan and offer a lower number. So there is the mandatory option, which is the Labour option, and the advisory option, which is the Conservative option. Is my understanding correct?

Lee Rowley: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his question. For the first time ever, the NPPF says, at paragraph 61:
“The outcome of the standard method is an advisory starting-point”.
Then there are potentially exceptional circumstances that can be discussed with a representative of the Government—in this case the Planning Inspectorate—and the case can be made and then discussed. If that is accepted, an alternative approach can be taken.

Tan Dhesi: Our country is facing a housing crisis and, after more than 13 long years, the Government have utterly failed the nation. Data from Glenigan published this week show that planning consents are at a record low, 20% down on last year, and they are due to become the lowest in a decade next year. Fifty-eight local housing authorities have scrapped or delayed their local plan as a direct result of the Secretary of State’s flip-flopping on housing targets last year. Does the Minister agree that the Government’s flip-flopping and dither and delay are having a significant downward effect on planning and housing delivery?

Lee Rowley: I have the greatest of respect for the hon. Gentleman, but we need to have a serious conversation about this. Planning consents are down because planning applications are down, and that is due to the global economic challenges. [Interruption.] Labour’s Front-Bench team do not want to accept that there are global economic challenges. That just demonstrates why they are so unready for the government of this country. We are trying to make sure, first, that we work through the global financial challenges and, secondly, that we still build the homes. One way that we undermine the building of more homes—the kind of homes that I know the hon. Gentleman and I would both like to see—is by not taking communities with us. What we seek to do today is inject more balance into the system so that we can take more communities with us. If we can get more plans in place, it usually means that more homes are delivered in the first place.

Harriett Baldwin: I thank the Minister for recognising the hard work that local communities such as Hallow, Clifton upon Teme, Kempsey and Welland have done in my largely rural constituency to develop neighbourhood plans, the strengthening of which has been announced today. None the less, those communities are being let down by the fact that our council is run by the independents and Greens, who do  not have a local plan in place. Can he tell us whether the additional protections from speculative development will be immediate or retrospective? When will they take effect?

Lee Rowley: I am a huge fan of neighbourhood plans, as are many of my colleagues across the House. They give communities the opportunity to get involved in the planning process and to get into the detail. They also often demonstrate that having honest conversations with people about planning can take some of the challenge out of the system. We are updating the NPPF with regard to neighbourhood plans, and we are strengthening them, as my hon. Friend outlined. The NPPF is extant from the moment that it is uploaded. There are some indications at the back of the plan where policies take priority at a later date, but we are committed to putting neighbourhood planning at the centre of our planning policy, because we think that it is very successful and helpful for our communities.

Andrew Western: I am somewhat perplexed by the renewed focus on strengthening local plans given the abolition of the mandatory housing targets that underpin delivery against them. Indeed, the Minister appears to be outlining a situation in which local authorities can game the system and deliberately plan to under-deliver if they have an up-to-date local plan, but a local authority that is delivering can be stripped of its planning powers because its plan is not up to date. If the Minister is so committed to accelerating housing delivery, why is he creating a situation in which we are both preventing greenfield building and stopping significant increases to urban density?

Lee Rowley: We are not preventing increases of urban density. Indeed, we want that to happen. We recognise that there are considerations around things such as second staircases, which we are working at pace to resolve as quickly as possible. We want more homes. We recognise that the infrastructure is often in place in urban areas, and we are keen to take up that infrastructure to be able to unlock those homes for people who need them.

Theresa Villiers: If I may take the Minister back to paragraph 61, will he confirm that the inclusion for the very first time in the NPPF of the words “advisory starting point” will have an impact on both the level of targets set and the weight to be given to a target? How, in practice, will that change the approach taken by planning inspectors when they approve plans and decide on individual planning appeals?

Lee Rowley: It is absolutely the case that the purpose of amending the national planning policy framework today is so that this information and wording, and the insertion of the advisory starting point and everything that follows, are taken into account in the process, and it is important that the planning inspector does that. Obviously, every single council is different, and we have set out the reality that each individual council will need to go through this process, but that should absolutely be taken into account.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: I must say to the Minister that we have been here before with housing targets; I seem to remember Mr John  Prescott—Lord Prescott—putting this forward. One of the problems we have is that, in a vast area that includes places such as the Somerset levels, Exmoor and many others, sometimes it is very difficult to build housing. However, where we have an irresponsible council—Liberal Democrat, obviously, in Mid Devon—we have another problem, because they do not care. They do not listen. They are there just to cause trouble at every level. The Minister must make sure that the safeguards are there for people who live in these areas—not hope; we need actual safeguards.

Lee Rowley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is one reason why we have been clear with a number of councils today that they need to get on with things. The whole point is that we put in place a process and a system that work and, for those actors that do not go through it, there are consequences.

Wendy Morton: In constituencies such as mine, the green belt is vital to protecting us from the urban sprawl of Birmingham, so I welcome the statement, so far as it goes with its protections for the green belt. However, can the Minister provide greater clarity on the matter of targets? It would be very helpful to have a clear understanding of what is meant by the advisory starting point and its impact on any ongoing mechanisms to impose the quotas of other authorities on a neighbour.

Lee Rowley: On my right hon. Friend’s second point—I am grateful to her for raising it—the duty to co-operate has been superseded. The point of the advisory starting point is to be very clear that individual circumstances might apply within the context of the need to build more homes in the right place. I cannot pre-empt or suggest exactly what that will mean in all instances. There is an example in the NPPF of where we think that is likely to be relevant, but obviously that will be discussed on a case-by-case, council-by-council basis.

Andrew Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for his statement. I am encouraged by his words on provision of care and retirement housing and his focus on design quality. I have no doubt that we need more homes, but green spaces and the green belt are of critical concern in Harrogate and Knaresborough. Can he tell me a little more about the safeguards for the green belt under the Conservative party, particularly compared with the Labour party?

Lee Rowley: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct about the importance of older people’s housing. We are currently in the process of supporting an older people’s housing taskforce, and I look forward to its recommendations about how to improve it for the long run. The green belt protections remain today as they were yesterday. What we are putting around them is a clearer process about where the case for exceptional circumstances can be made. It will be down to individual councils, with their individual circumstances, individual beauty and individual environment, to make that case where they feel it is appropriate to do so.

Katherine Fletcher: Communities in South Ribble, including Eccleston, Mawdesley and Croston, are subject to Chorley Council. I understand that Chorley is one of only two councils designated for  poor planning performance. Does the Minister believe that that poor performance is due to Chorley’s failure to produce a local plan to protect South Ribble residents from inappropriate planning applications?

Lee Rowley: My hon. Friend is a huge champion for her constituents in South Ribble. We need local plans in place. I saw when I first became an MP in North East Derbyshire, where the Labour council failed to put a local plan in place, the huge issues that causes for communities. I know there are other councils all around the country that fail to do that, and it causes so many issues. We have spoken about some of the challenges in South Ribble, and I am keen to work with my hon. Friend and to talk more about them over the weeks ahead. It is important that plans are put in place. Where councils are not performing—where they have not passed the threshold for the number of applications they need to pass or have lost too many on appeal—we will designate and we will be clear that changes are needed.

Greg Smith: I place on record my gratitude to the Secretary of State for agreeing, this time last year, to put stronger protections for land use in food production into the NPPF, and to my hon. Friend the Minister for confirming today that they have survived the consultation period. Will he clarify, first, that the new language in the NPPF is a binary test where land is either used in food production or is not, ending the dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin lawyer’s paradise of arguing about what is best and most versatile, and, secondly, that the character test he spoke of applies to rural character as well as in urban environments?

Lee Rowley: On my hon. Friend’s second point, absolutely. On his first point, I will read the footnote to paragraph 1.81 of the NPPF:
“The availability of agricultural land used for food production should be considered”.
I hope that is helpful.

Selaine Saxby: I thank my hon. Friend for much of today’s announcement. In seats such as mine, it does not really matter what the target is when such a high proportion of the homes that are built are just used as short-term holiday lets. This time a year ago, we agreed to another consultation, which finished this June. I ask again: when might we have the results of that consultation and steps to ensure that, when we build homes in communities such as mine, those homes are affordable for the people who live and work there?

Lee Rowley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend not just for her question, which gives us only a few seconds to talk about the matter, but for her Adjournment debate a few days ago, when we had a much longer period to talk about it. She makes a very important point; I know how important it is to colleagues in the south-east and elsewhere and, although I am not able to give her a date today, I hope to have more on that very soon.

Jeremy Quin: I welcome what the Minister says on the importance of neighbourhood plans, on agricultural land and on brownfield development. Can he clarify what the consequences are if a district council has already embarked on a consultation on a local plan but, having studied the NPPF in detail, sees  stuff there that it wants to embrace and chooses to adopt elements of the NPPF, which then leads to a consequential delay?

Lee Rowley: There is a long section at the end of the revised NPPF that explains the arrangements for councils that are in the process. We are trying to strike a delicate balance, ensuring that councils go through that process to the extent that they are able to, while recognising that those in an earlier part of the process may want to consider some of the changes. It generally is the case, if I recall correctly, that when councils have passed the regulation 19 stage—the second consultation—there is a greater expectation that they will stay in the process. It is ultimately for them to make their own judgments, but the Government will be watching the result.

Bob Seely: I think overall that this is a very good plan and very well delivered by the Minister. I welcome in particular the remarks on character, on beauty, on the importance of agricultural land, on the importance of community support and on the fact that targets are a start point and not an end point. Those are significant changes that mean that communities can be listened to. Will the Minister just confirm that the exceptional circumstance will be available—perhaps even welcome—for examples including islands separated by sea, such as my Isle of Wight constituency?

Lee Rowley: The footnotes to paragraph 61 use as an example
“areas that are islands with no land bridge that have a significant proportion of elderly residents.”
I hope my hon. Friend will welcome the fact that that sounds very much like the Isle of Wight.

Eleanor Laing: The prize for patience and perseverance, with the last question of the year, goes to Nigel Mills.

Nigel Mills: It is a privilege, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Five years ago, the export of houses from Derby made a local plan in Amber Valley impossible, but there is no reason for delay now. Does the Minister agree that there is no reason for the Labour-run council not to have made more rapid progress with the pretty reasonable plan it inherited in May? Will he also confirm what the consequence will be if the 12-week direction he has issued today does not result in rapid progress, to ensure that residents in Amber Valley get a local plan sometime soon?

Lee Rowley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour, who I know speaks up for his constituents. Labour won Amber Valley Borough Council and it now needs to own ensuring that the council delivers on its responsibilities. If Labour has made promises to Amber Valley residents that it cannot fulfil, that is on Labour. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of councils to make sure that they have a plan in place, and to do that at the earliest possible opportunity. Where Labour councils such as Amber Valley are failing to do that and are speaking out of both sides of their mouths, it is right that he calls that out. Amber Valley needs to get on with its plan.

Points of Order

Alexander Stafford: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a well-known matter of parliamentary protocol that when hon. Members carry out visits and duties in another Member’s seat, they notify the Member prior to their visit. Time and time again, other hon. Members have visited my seat on official duties and not notified me. They include, recently, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) and repeated unnotified visits by the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey). Perhaps the shadow Transport Secretary’s notification got delayed, just like the woeful bus service the Mayor of South Yorkshire is presiding over, and perhaps the shadow Defence Secretary did not want to announce coming to Brexit-voting Rother Valley on the back of Labour’s new plans for closer military ties with the EU. Madam Deputy Speaker, please can you confirm that MPs on official visits to other Members’ seats should always notify sitting Members?

Eleanor Laing: Before I—[Interruption.] Thank you very much. We do not need any further interventions, but I will take a further point of order if the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne would like to make one.

John Healey: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, me and my family actually live in Rotherham and if I notified him every time I was in his constituency, I would simply swamp his inbox.

Alexander Stafford: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Eleanor Laing: Order.

Alexander Stafford: Please, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Eleanor Laing: Order. [Interruption.] This is not a seesaw—[Interruption.]

Alexander Stafford: Madam Deputy Speaker, my family live in Rother Valley as well and he knows that. To say my family do not live there is disgraceful. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman was embarrassed about standing next to councillors who did not report the child sexual exploitation in Rotherham. Perhaps that is why he is smiling and doing that. That was reported by the Guido website.

Eleanor Laing: Order. We will now calm down. [Interruption.] I do not need the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) at the back to tell other Members to sit down. If the hon. Member for Rother Valley has to sit down, I will tell him to sit down.
Let us just clear up this matter in its various aspects. First of all, it is understandable that the hon. Member for Rother Valley is angry about his family being brought into it. I am quite sure that the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne, on the Opposition Front Bench, will wish to withdraw that part of his remarks and allow the House to concentrate on the fact that he does enter  privately the hon. Gentleman’s constituency frequently. [Interruption.] Will the hon. Member for Rother Valley please be quiet and allow me to answer the question that he raised? Now, will the right hon. Gentleman remove from his remarks the mention of the hon. Gentleman’s family? [Interruption.]
I think we are getting a little confused here, largely because there is noise and when people shout I cannot hear what other people are saying. I think there has been some confusion, so let us just sort it out. The right hon. Gentleman did not say anything about your family, Mr Stafford. He said something about his own family and where they live. It is up to him—[Interruption.] Will you stop talking while I am answering the question? The right hon. Gentleman did not say anything about Mr Stafford’s family. If he had done that, that would be quite wrong and I would be the first to defend Mr Stafford. What we are talking about is a situation where Mr Stafford is quite rightly annoyed that the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley have, on several occasions, gone into his constituency not on private business, but on party business or otherwise. Where that occurs, it should not.
For the guidance of Members—although I know that the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne does not need it, because he is a long-standing Member of this House and one who normally behaves with absolute honour in all that he does—we have the “Rules of behaviour and courtesies in the House of Commons”. This little booklet was recently sent, in its newly amended version, to all Members of the House. Quite often, when Mr Speaker and those of us who occupy the Chair have to deal with points of order here in the Chamber, it is because Members have not read it, or they might have read it or looked at the cover but not taken in its contents. I would be most grateful if everybody would look at it. It was sent very recently. This is a new version, published in November 2023. It is one of my few published books! I joke that it is mine, but it is not mine. It was put together by the House, but Mr Speaker and the Deputy Speakers had very considerable input into it. It would be helpful if Members were to take on board what it says.
The hon. Gentleman, Mr Stafford, has made a perfectly reasonable point of order. It has been responded to by the right hon. Gentleman, Mr Healey. I think we can leave it at that. Thank you.

James Murray: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 22 November, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) said in this Chamber that
“taxes for the average worker have gone down by £1,000.”—[Official Report, 22 November 2023; Vol. 741, c. 360.]
On 30 November, she said:
“Taxes for the average worker will have gone down by £1,000 since 2010.”—[Official Report, 30 November 2023; Vol. 741, c. 1084.]
In a subsequent letter to me, on 15 December, she effectively admitted that taxes had not actually gone down as she earlier claimed. She now claimed instead that taxes for the average worker are £1,000 lower than they would have been. However, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has refused to correct the record so far. I would be grateful for your advice, Madam Deputy  Speaker, on whether there is any guidance available to Ministers on the circumstances in which they should seek to make such a correction.

Eleanor Laing: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. As Mr Speaker has said many times from this Chair and I have repeated, the accuracy of Ministers’ statements in the House is not a matter for the Chair. The interpretation of statistics is a matter of interpretation and it is very often the case that one Member views a statistic from one angle and another Member views the same statistic from a completely different angle. The hon. Gentleman has made his point very clearly and I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard it.

Harriett Baldwin: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It may be helpful to the House if I draw its attention once again to paragraph 3.13 of the autumn statement document, which outlines exactly how that £1,000 tax cut is calculated.

Eleanor Laing: I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order, which I think proves what I have just said. The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady are looking at the same statistics and interpreting them in slightly different ways. That is what politics is about; that is what this Chamber is about. It is about having a discussion from one side to the other. Thank you very much.

Miners’ Strike (Pardons)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Owen Thompson: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to pardon miners convicted of certain offences committed during the 1984-85 miners’ strike.
I welcome the opportunity to speak about a matter of great importance to me and many others in my Midlothian constituency and beyond. A miners’ pardon would be a powerful symbol of reconciliation. It would show we are prepared to put the past behind us and move on. The miners’ strike of 1984-85 was one of the most bitter and divisive events in British history. It was a time when miners, who were fighting for their jobs and their communities, were met with the full force of the state. Thousands were arrested and many were convicted of offences such as breach of the peace, obstruction of the police and breach of bail conditions. Those convictions were a travesty of justice. The miners were heroes, not criminals; they were fighting for their livelihoods.
The Scottish Parliament has helpfully already passed a law pardoning miners who were convicted in Scotland during the strike. I believe that now is the time for the UK Government to do the same for those miners in England and Wales. Members may ask why I, a Scottish MP, am bringing in this Bill. It is not only because some miners may have moved from my constituency to England and Wales, but because any kind of compensation scheme would require a UK-wide pardon to be in effect. Beyond that, it is a matter of justice. The miners deserve to have their convictions wiped away; they deserve to be remembered as the heroes they were in their communities.
The miners’ strike was a watershed moment in British history, and it had a profound impact on Scotland especially. The strike was a national dispute, but it was particularly hard-fought in Scotland, where the coal industry was a major employer and a significant part of the culture and identity of many communities. I have spoken several times about the merits of a UK-wide inquiry into the miners’ strike of 1984-85. Over that time, I have gathered the views and memories of many of those who were involved at the height of the strikes.
I moved to my now hometown of Loanhead at the height of the strikes in 1985. Criminal records, lost pensions and social stigma are now the real-world consequences of the actions that many took. Many are still living with the aftermath today. A pardon, and indeed a public inquiry, could be a step on the way to get answers and redress for those affected by the many injustices caused by those events. We need to heal the wounds of the past in order to move forward. Do we learn from injustice and listen to the lessons, or would we do it all again given the chance? Those are the questions that need answered for the sake of communities across the country, especially my own in Midlothian.
Mining in Midlothian dates back all the way to the 12th century, when the monks of Newbattle Abbey first began extracting coal. By the 20th century, mining was integral to my community’s way of life. Midlothian was home to a range of pits, from Bilston Glen and Monktonhall to the first Victorian super-pit at the Lady Victoria colliery, which is still home to the National  Mining Museum Scotland. I would welcome any hon. Member who wants to visit at any time—they can let me know that they are coming if they want, but they can also come in their own time. It is a great visit.
By the 1980s, mines meant miners’ strikes. A token picket of six was maintained at Monktonhall, but Bilston Glen and Loanhead saw mass picketing and some of the most bitter conflicts of the strike in Scotland. According to Professor Jim Murdoch, miners’ stories
“showed without doubt that the criminal justice system all too often reacted in an arbitrary and disproportionate manner.”
A former miner at Monktonhall colliery, and a former council colleague of mine, Alex Bennett, who sadly passed away in January this year, told the inquiry in Scotland:
“I was snatched by one of the snatch squads. They went for the union officials and they knew our names. The original charges were for rioting but that wasn’t going to stick so they changed it to breach of the peace.”
The tactic was simply to use whatever means necessary to get miners, especially union officials, off the picket line and into the cells. Breach of the peace, obstructing a police officer, breach of bail and theft—all those charges and more were twisted to justify the snatch squad style of policing. These tactics would not look out of place in North Korea or Putin’s Russia. Serious questions remain about the extent of alleged political interference in the policing of the strike. Arrested strikers were sacked and denied redundancy payments and pension rights.
The Scottish Government rightly recognised the scale of the injustice back in 2018 when they commissioned an independent review, led by John Scott KC, of the impact of policing on communities, but the campaign did not start only then. I pay tribute to former MSP Neil Findlay, who was campaigning as far back as 2012 for an inquiry and compensation for the miners who were caught up in this. That baton was picked up by Richard Leonard, who ensured that the Bill passed through the Scottish Parliament with the support of the Scottish Government. I have already mentioned former councillor Alex Bennett from Danderhall, who sadly died in January. My predecessor, David Hamilton, did so much to support the cause. Then there are those who took part in supporting the Scottish Government’s inquiry, including independent review advisory panel members Dennis Canavan, Jim Murdoch and Kate Thomson.
Following testimony from former miners, police officers and mining communities, the review group made one single recommendation: that the Scottish Government should introduce legislation to pardon miners convicted for certain matters related to the strike. The Miners’ Strike (Pardons) (Scotland) Act 2022 was welcomed by the National Union of Mineworkers for removing the stigma of a criminal record. I am delighted to say that it was passed unanimously by the Scottish Parliament in June 2022. It is never too late. By following the lead of the Scottish Government, healing can start today for other parts of these isles.
Numerous clashes between striking miners and police officers resulted in injuries and arrests. The UK Government imposed tight restrictions on picketing, making it difficult for miners to gather and protest, leading to frustration and anger among many communities. The Government brought in non-union workers, which was seen by many miners as a betrayal and led to further violence and  unrest. The carnage of that time saw jobs lost forever, and the economic hardship caused by the strike led to social problems such as poverty, unemployment, social deprivation and alcoholism. That has had a hard knock-on effect on other communities, as industries and businesses that relied on coal were also forced to close. Many struggled to make ends meet. In some ways, it all resembled a civil war, creating huge divisions and strife among families and communities.
The strike was seen as a full-scale attack by the Government and police on miners and their communities. It is only right that this place now takes the chance to recognise the solidarity that miners and their communities had, and still have to this day, by bringing forward a pardon. It would be a lasting symbol of recognition of what went wrong during the decline of the coal industry, of the destruction of towns, villages and their way of life by the Government of the day. The strikes are still remembered with a great deal of bitterness in communities like mine. We could do the right thing by righting the wrongs of that time. I encourage all Members to support the Bill. It is never too late to right the wrongs of the past.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Owen Thompson, Martyn Day, Alan Brown, Marion Fellows, Ben Lake, Patricia Gibson, Douglas Chapman, John Mc Nally, Alison Thewliss, Hannah Bardell and Steven Bonnar present the Bill.
Owen Thompson accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 19 January 2024, and to be printed (Bill 143).

Post Office (Horizon System) Compensation Bill (Allocation  of Time)

Ordered,
That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Post Office (Horizon System) Compensation Bill:

Timetable

(1) (a) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken at today’s sitting in accordance with this Order.
(b) Proceedings on Second Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion 3 hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
(c) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion 4 hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.

Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put

(2) When the Bill has been read a second time:
(a) it shall, despite Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills not subject to a programme order), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put;
(b) proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed while the Question is put, in accordance with Standing Order No. 52(1) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills), on any financial resolution relating to the Bill;
(c) on the conclusion of proceedings on any financial resolution relating to the Bill, proceedings on the Bill shall be resumed and the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
(3) (a) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee of the whole House, the Chair shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
(b) If the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
(4) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (1), the Chair or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions in the same order as they would fall to be put if this Order did not apply:
(a) any Question already proposed from the chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment, new Clause or new Schedule selected by the Chair or Speaker for separate decision;
(d) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(e) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;
and shall not put any other questions, other than the question on any motion described in paragraph (11)(a) of this Order.
(5) On a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chair or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(6) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (4)(d) on successive amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Chair or Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.
(7) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (4)(e) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chair shall instead put a single Question in relation to those provisions.

Other proceedings

(8) Provision may be made for the taking and bringing to a conclusion of any other proceedings on the Bill.

Miscellaneous

(9) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill.
(10) Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies.
(11) (a) No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken, to recommit the Bill or to vary or supplement the provisions of this Order.
(b) No notice shall be required of such a Motion.
(c) Such a Motion may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
(d) The Question on such a Motion shall be put forthwith; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (c) shall thereupon be resumed.
(e) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on such a Motion.
(12) (a) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown.
(b) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
(13) (a) The start of any debate under Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates) to be held on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day shall be postponed until the conclusion of any proceedings on that day to which this Order applies.
(b) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply in respect of any such debate.
(14) Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(15) (a) Any private business which has been set down for consideration at a time falling after the commencement of proceedings on this Order or on the Bill on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders or by any Order of the House, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day.
(b) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business so far as necessary for the purpose of securing that the business may be considered for a period of three hours.—(Scott Mann.)

Post Office (Horizon System) Compensation Bill

Second Reading
[Relevant documents: Eighth Report of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee of Session 2021-22, Post Office and Horizon—Compensation: interim report, HC 1129, and the Government response, HC 1267; Oral evidence taken by the Business and Trade Committee on 20 June, on The Post Office, Session 2022-23, HC 1501; Oral evidence taken by the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee on 17 January, on Royal Mail and the Post Office, Session 2022-23, HC 1045.]

Kevin Hollinrake: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Post Office Horizon scandal, which began over 20 years ago, and the impacts of which are still felt today, is rightly described as one of the biggest miscarriages of justice in our history. The House will be aware that during the late 1990s the Post Office began installing Horizon accounting software, but faults in the software led to shortfalls in branches’ accounts. The Post Office demanded that postmasters cover the shortfalls and, in many cases, wrongfully prosecuted them for false accounting or theft. Attempts to protest their innocence fell on deaf ears, and decent, honest and hard-working postmasters who served at the heart of our communities were subject to a range of abject harms.
Take the case of Alan Bates, who is one of a number of heroes in this tale. As many Members will know, Mr Bates is due to be immortalised on our screens on 1 January in the ITV series “Mr Bates vs The Post Office”, which will make compelling viewing for many of us. He is an innocent man who, alongside his partner Suzanne, invested £100,000 of life savings to start a new life and run the post office branch in Craig-y-Don, on the north Wales coast. When shortfalls began to emerge, Mr Bates was accused by the Post Office of mismanagement and ordered to repay the difference immediately. He protested his innocence and identified some of the supposed shortfall as the result of an overnight software update. The Post Office continued to pursue payment, meanwhile refusing Mr Bates the IT access necessary to interrogate his own branch accounts. His postmaster’s contract was subsequently terminated, with Mr Bates losing his likelihood, savings and reputation in his community in the process.
Suspecting that other postmasters may have suffered because of Horizon issues, Mr Bates launched his campaign website. Ultimately—15 years later—he gathered enough evidence to successfully take the Post Office to court and expose the scandal.

Alan Mak: Like Mr Bates, my constituents Mr and Mrs Simpson ran a village shop and post office that suffered from the faulty software. They have campaigned for compensation through the Justice For Subpostmasters Alliance, and Mr Simpson himself gave evidence at the public inquiry. Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to my constituents and their colleagues? Without their determination and courage, we would not be where we are today, delivering this Bill to support those victims.

Kevin Hollinrake: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I particularly thank Mr and Mrs Simpson for their work—of course, a number of people campaigned so strongly on this tragedy. I pay tribute to his constituents and to many others like them who made sure we are here today, delivering justice and, indeed, compensation for those postmasters.
Alan Bates’s case is one individual tragedy, but he is only one among many: over 3,000 people have suffered in some way as a result of this scandal. For some, that meant paying the Post Office money they did not owe. For others, it meant the loss of their livelihood, their home, their mental or physical health, or their family relationships. Too many have died before getting justice; saddest of all, some of those deaths were suicides. Each Horizon victim is a personal tragedy, and it is imperative that each and every one gets the justice and compensation for which they have waited too long.
This Government are committed to delivering justice for all Horizon victims. Part of that justice will come from making sure that everyone knows the truth about what happened, which is why the Government set up the statutory inquiry into the scandal chaired by Sir Wyn Williams. The work of that inquiry to date is commendable—it is doing important work in exposing the truth. From that truth will follow corporate and individual accountability, for which there is a strong appetite in this House and beyond. I sympathise with hon. Members’ desire to see accountability right now, but we must let justice take its course.

David Davis: On the Minister’s point about corporate responsibility, I had the chief executive of the Post Office come and apologise to one of the people I have represented in this exercise. The point I made to him, which I hope the Minister will also take on board, is that the corporate behaviour of the Post Office has not been above criticism: it has employed very expensive lawyers to make this process much more difficult for the victims than it needs to be. I hope the Government will continue to encourage the Post Office not to do that.

Kevin Hollinrake: Absolutely—we want to make it as easy as possible. I thank my right hon. Friend for his campaigning on this matter, too: he is one of a number of parliamentarians who has done fantastic work to make sure we are here today. I have referred to both corporate and individual responsibility. Corporate accountability is not enough: where we find that individuals are to blame, they should be held to account too.
Any compensation must be fair and just, and we have created a Horizon compensation advisory board to help us make sure that happens. I am very grateful to the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), both for his campaigning on this matter and his work on the advisory board. He sits on the board alongside Lord Arbuthnot, who is another great campaigner on this matter, and two academics. Its reports, which are published on gov.uk, have been invaluable in helping  us ensure that the schemes are working properly and delivering fairness. As part of the Post Office’s process for compensation for overturned convictions, it is —by agreement with claimants’ lawyers—appointing an independent assessor for the process, whose role will be to ensure that fair compensation is paid.

Duncan Baker: The Minister is right when he says that this is a miscarriage of justice. As I have often said in this place, I was formerly a postmaster, and I can remember when the tills did not balance. Unlike the Post Office, I believed my staff that it was not their fault—that there was an error. Luckily, those errors were not significant, and we just wrote them off. I thank the Minister for all he has done, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), who has equally done an enormous amount.
The Post Office did not believe those innocent postmasters who were simply doing their job, but equally, Fujitsu supplied the software that did not work properly, yet I never hear about whether that company is culpable. Can the Minister tell me what Fujitsu has ever had to suffer from what has happened to everybody else?

Kevin Hollinrake: I thank my hon. Friend for his work on this issue, as well as his direct experience—he is one of the few people in this House who has that experience. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) for all the work he did as my predecessor; his comments about Fujitsu, and about making sure that it is not the taxpayer alone who picks up the tab, are clearly on the record. Again, where responsibility can be assigned, there should be accountability, perhaps in the form of compensation paid by those companies. It is right, though, that the Sir Wyn Williams inquiry is allowed to take the time it needs to report and to identify blame where it exists. Those matters can then be dealt with at that time.
Alongside introducing this Bill, my Department published a revised version of the documents for the group litigation order scheme, which make clearer than ever that the scheme exists to pay full, fair and timely compensation. If compensation cannot be agreed with my Department, a decision will be made by a panel of independent experts. Any GLO postmaster who believes that the panel’s award fails that fairness test can ask the scheme’s independent reviewer, Sir Ross Cranston, to look at their case. Between them, those arrangements provide powerful and independent assurance that compensation is fair.
Turning to compensation amounts, to date, around £138 million has been paid out to over 2,700 claimants across the three compensation schemes established by the Post Office and the Government. Those figures are regularly updated on the dedicated gov.uk page. So far, 93 convictions have been overturned. We have seen positive progress since my previous statement to the House on 18 September, which announced that postmasters who have had convictions on the basis of Horizon evidence overturned are entitled to up-front offers of £600,000 as a fixed sum in full and final settlement of their claim. I can confirm that following that announcement, the first 22 claimants have now settled their claims with the Post Office, taking the total to 27 full and final settlements—I hope this will encourage other postmasters to submit claims. I should add that a significant proportion of those claimants followed the fixed sum award route.
The GLO scheme, administered by my Department for the 500 trailblazing postmasters who took the Post Office to court and exposed the Horizon scandal, has already paid out roughly £27 million across 475 claimants. Postmasters who were neither convicted nor members  of the GLO can apply to the Post Office-run Horizon shortfall scheme. I am pleased to say that every last one of the 2,417 people who applied before the scheme’s original deadline have now received initial offers of compensation, and some £87 million has been paid out. The Post Office is now dealing with late applications and with those cases where the initial offer was not accepted.
I turn now to the provisions of the Bill before us. The Post Office (Horizon System) Compensation Bill, a small Bill of just two clauses, provides a continuing legal basis for the payments of compensation to victims of this appalling scandal. Principally, it will enable the Government to continue to pay compensation under the GLO scheme that my Department is currently administering. Compensation payments made under the scheme are currently paid under the sole authority of the successive Appropriation Acts, and Parliament requires all such payments to be made within a two-year period. The first payment of interim compensation was made on 8 August 2022, meaning that, with the law as it stands, no GLO payments can be made beyond 7 August 2024. This Bill removes that deadline.
This certainly does not mean we are taking our foot off the gas. We will still want to be able to pay compensation as quickly as possible. My Department is now committed to making an initial offer of compensation in 90% of cases within 40 working days of receiving a fully completed GLO claim, and many claims will be dealt with much more quickly. However, as Sir Wyn Williams has noted, the resolution of compensation claims requires actions by postmasters, their advisers and third parties, as well as by the Government.
In his interim report, which he provided to Parliament in July, Sir Wyn expressed concern that the August deadline could leave some postmasters timed out of compensation or rushed into making decisions. The Government agree that this must not happen, and the Bill ensures that it will not happen. All GLO postmasters will get full and fair compensation, and they will get it promptly without being unduly rushed.
In conclusion, until everyone has fair compensation, the truth is known and the guilty are held accountable, Members of this House and others will rightly continue to raise issues about this scandal. In the meantime, the House should know that this Government are on the side of the postmasters, and we will continue to give these issues our full attention and do our best to resolve them. This Bill is a further example of that, and I commend it to the House.

Eleanor Laing: I call the shadow Minister.

Rushanara Ali: I want to begin by paying tribute to Members across the House who have worked tirelessly on this campaign, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) for his work in campaigning on this issue and Lord Arbuthnot for his many years of work in tackling this injustice. Of course, as the Minister has said, we all pay particular tribute to Alan Bates for his pioneering work in this campaign and for working tirelessly to seek justice. Without his bravery and perseverance, the campaign would not be where it is today.
The Horizon scandal, as we have heard from the Minister, is a truly shocking miscarriage of justice and one of the most devastating in British history. The scandal has brought devastation to the lives of over 700 falsely convicted sub-postmasters, and 20 years on, they and their families are still suffering from the consequences and the trauma of all they have been put through. I want to pay tribute to their determination for pursuing justice. The wrongly accused sub-postmasters have had to endure unjust prison terms, family breakdowns, homelessness, bankruptcy, health consequences, being ostracised from their own communities and worse, to say nothing of the mental health toll and the stress they have all carried while knowing that they have been wrongly convicted. I do not think any of us can truly understand the scale of what they have suffered.
As of 10 August 2023, the Post Office Horizon IT inquiry and the court cases have heard that at least 60 sub-postmasters have died without seeing justice or receiving compensation, and at least four have tragically taken their own lives. Most recently, Tom Brown, a constituent of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham, sadly, passed away. He was the sub-postmaster of several branches spanning 30 years, and he died without receiving his full and final compensation. My thoughts, and I am sure those of the whole House, are with his family and friends at this time, as well as with the many others who have lost loved ones affected by this horrific injustice.
Many have suffered and continue to suffer because of this scandal. Tracy Felstead was a post office worker who was jailed when she was just 19. Rubbina Shaheen suffered a prison sentence as a result, and had to sell her house and live in a van. Seema Misra was pregnant with her second child when she was convicted of theft and sent to jail in 2010. She said:
“It was the worst thing. It was so shameful.”
As a result, she experienced regular suicidal thoughts at the time. Those are just a few of the examples in a tragically long list.
This is a scandal that has destroyed victims’ lives and taken everything from them, but this case is beyond just being a scandal; it is an insidious injustice that has been devastating and has in some cases claimed people’s lives. The suffering of the sub-postmasters can never come close to being repaid, but the very least the Government can do is ensure that they receive their fair compensation as soon as possible. Many of those who, sadly, have passed away never lived to see their innocence proven or to see the compensation that they deserved paid. With further delays to the compensation, the Government run the risk of more sub-postmasters not receiving the compensation they deserve as soon as possible, so it is vital that Ministers act with urgency and speed.

Matt Rodda: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I pay tribute to the campaigners, particularly Mr Bates and, indeed, hon. Members from across the House. The point she makes about the Government, the Post Office and, indeed, Fujitsu learning lessons from this appalling scandal is absolutely right, and I do hope that the Minister, when he speaks later, will be able to address those points. Does she agree with me that it is very important that the Government learn the lessons and help the Post Office learn the lessons of such awful incidents?

Rushanara Ali: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I know that the Minister will be keen to make sure that these mistakes are never repeated and that the lessons are learned.
It is vital that we act with urgency and speed, and I look forward to the full publication of the Post Office Horizon IT inquiry, so that we can ensure that those responsible are finally held to account. It cannot be right that they have not been held to account as yet, when so much time has passed. I want to thank Sir Wyn Williams and the inquiry team for their ongoing work.
The Labour party will work with the Government to do what we can to ensure that justice is delivered, and as such we support the Bill. The Government must now confirm how they will use the extra time that this Bill grants to deliver justice as quickly as possible. I welcome some of the detail that the Minister has provided in writing as well as what he has said today, and I hope that he ensures that the necessary action is taken to ensure delivery and that the compensation is provided as quickly as possible. Once again, I pay tribute to all those who have worked tirelessly to secure justice, and I commend this Bill to the House.

Paul Scully: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to ease my way back on to the Back Benches and speak about this issue and a number of others. After nearly four years of dealing with covid and its effect on the hospitality sector, the Online Safety Bill and gambling harms, nothing has kept me awake at night more than the plight of the sub-postmasters who fell within the Horizon scandal and the biggest miscarriage of justice in British court history.
I welcome the Bill and thank the Minister for all his work in trying to rectify the situation. It is horrendously complex, with many strands of compensation and a lot of different competing needs and demands. It is lovely to see on the officials’ bench some familiar faces of those who have worked tirelessly over many years, including preceding my time as Minister.
This provision is not just to extend the time available and ensure that we are ahead of the process for August next year, but is important in itself to keep this issue in the public eye. Mention has been made of “Mr Bates vs the Post Office”, which I am looking forward to seeing in the new year. With all the competing interests of what is happening in the middle east, in Ukraine, and in people’s personal lives here in the UK, it is important that we remind ourselves of what can happen if one corporation oversteps its reach. We must always remind ourselves of that, and we must drive our way through to solving this issue, getting the answers that the postmasters need and, importantly, restoring their financial situation as best we can to where they were before the detriment occurred.
I remember how we pulled levers when I was a Minister and used the fact that the then Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, stood at the Dispatch Box and said, in answer to a question, that he would happily look at a public inquiry. That gave me carte blanche to lean in and ensure that we used that authority, and with the backing of officials and my Department, we started what was originally a non-statutory inquiry that then   became statutory. It had to become statutory after we heard from the judge in the Court of Appeal. At the time I genuinely wanted it to be non-statutory, not because I wanted to resile from anything that was happening, but purely and simply for speed and ease. It was so that we could concentrate on getting the postmasters compensation and the answers they wanted, rather than having a layer of lawyers—frankly we are seeing that at the covid inquiry at the moment—looking at other things outside the narrow term of reference. We clearly had to have a statutory inquiry once the judge at the Court of Appeal outlined his thoughts.
Despite the complexity, when I first spoke to Sir Wyn when appointing him at the beginning, we were hoping that the inquiry would be wrapped up by now, and it is frustrating that by necessity he is still going through the deliberation, taking evidence and working through a hugely complex situation. It is disappointing but understandable that compensation is taking so long to get out, for reasons that the Minister has already described regarding how we work through such complexities.
The shadow Minister talked about how the Minister might use the extra time beyond August. I hope we do not need that extra time and that it is there to get ahead of the process, rather than saying that we will extend the process because we have carte blanche permission to go beyond 24 August and kick it into the long grass. As we have heard, people cannot wait. People are dying, people are taking their own life, people have been forced out of their villages. Indeed, the constituent of one hon. Member was forced out of the country for fear of the shame of something they had not done in the first place.
With hindsight, if I were back at the start of the process I would like to run the compensation all in one go from the Department. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) is nodding his head, because he asked about that at the time. I very much take on board the work he has done not just as a campaigner but on the advisory committee. I put a lot of weight both on his words in the Chamber and on those he said to me informally outside it, when we could talk in more depth about what was happening with his constituent and the other people we were speaking about. If we had run the compensation as one process within the Department, it could have helped to narrow the focus of what needed to be done. I am not asking the Minister to go down that line, but whatever happens in the months to come, I hope he will always look at providing flexibility and at what more we can do to keep the pressure on. There is a phrase in the civil service and in government about doing things “at pace”. It is a phrase I never really hear outside government—I always heard it in government—and the problem is who defines what pace something is. What we mean is quickly, or “more haste less speed”, as my old teacher used to say.
As I have said, this is the best thing I will ever do in politics, and the officials in the Department, many of whom are here today, have repeated that. It has become very liberating, because I think we are all on the same page. We all want to get this done now, not only so that we can get people compensation, but so that we can get answers and justice, and put on the hook those who should be on the hook, rather than the taxpayer.
It is also important to do that for the future of the Post Office. I see the hon. Member for Motherwell and  Wishaw (Marion Fellows), the chair of the all-party group on post offices, in her place. If this was any other type of corporation or company, the chances are that it would have gone to the wall and gone bust by now as the reputational damage would have been too big. The Post Office is too important for the fabric of our society to allow it to go by the wayside. To address its the future, we have to tackle the past as well. Making sure that those two strands are running together is so important.
I will leave it at that. I do not want to keep the House too long, but I remember Tracy Felstead, Janet Skinner, Seema Misra, Christopher Head, Lee Castleton and other people, some of whom still keep me in touch with what is happening, usually on Twitter, or X.
I wish everyone in this House a merry Christmas. I hope that we all have a good rest and a happy new year, but I want those postmasters affected to have as good a Christmas and new year as they can. I want to make sure that Christmas 2024 is an even better Christmas and new year for them, because by then, I hope we will have sorted the compensation as best we can and brought this to a close, so that they can move on, and so can the Post Office.

Eleanor Laing: I call the SNP spokesman.

Marion Fellows: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully). In no way do I want the speech I am about to give to seem mean-spirited, but things have to be said, so I will say them, and I hope in a justifiable way. While the Bill is welcome, to ensure that no Horizon victims who were part of the group litigation order miss out on compensation, we must ensure that despite the extension, all efforts are made to compensate victims fairly as soon as possible. I thank the Minister for his remarks on that in his opening speech.
It is hard to see why such a Bill, which does nothing more than empower the Secretary of State to pay compensation, has taken so long to get here. Concerns were first published in the media in 2009. In 2015, the Post Office scrapped its independent investigation into the system by Second Sight the day before the report was due to be published. Post Office Ltd conceded a court case admitting Horizon faults more than four years ago, on the day of the last general election—a move that seems to have been timed to avoid scrutiny.
Calls for compensation have been clear and long. This Bill could have been passed in the first months of this Parliament, but it was not. It is now coming to the fag end of this Parliament, and we need to move on. I know that everyone is committed to that, but facts are facts. We still have no idea, three and a half years after settling, why the situation was allowed to go on for so long.
Many victims, as we are all well aware, have sadly passed away, and some by their own hand. They never saw proper justice and proper compensation for the years of trauma they endured at the hands of Post Office Ltd. Their families still suffer. The ongoing inquiry has been blighted by further delay and disclosure issues by Post Office Ltd. Each inquiry delay disgracefully delays justice and the payment of compensation. There must be no further setbacks obstructing the delivery of justice. The inquiry has uncovered further scandal upon  scandal, and the pervasive culture throughout Post Office Ltd between 1999 and today has been one of dishonesty, incompetence and deceit, raising further questions over all Post Office convictions in this period, not just those linked to Horizon.
The actions of Post Office Ltd employees at various levels and in various departments, including those responsible for auditing and investigations and in the legal departments, have been brought to light in the most recent stage of the inquiry. At every level, there was clear culpability. The boastful manner in which some of those responsible celebrated the convictions of innocent sub-postmasters, while knowing of Horizon bugs, adds insult to injury for victims.
The Bill is too narrow in its scope, and in the interests of justice, it should be broadened to ensure that everyone who has been investigated and convicted by Post Office Ltd has their case investigated to ensure that no other miscarriages of justice have happened. There are still questions to be answered about the Post Office’s co-operation with the inquiry and its relationship with Fujitsu, past and present. In April 2023, Post Office Ltd renewed the contract with Fujitsu, which created and provided the Horizon software, for another year. So far, Fujitsu has avoided any financial penalties as a result of the faulty software, with the burden falling on the Government and Post Office, but in January 2022 Members of the other place said that Fujitsu should dig into its pockets for doing nothing while the scandal unfolded in front of its eyes. The inquiry is investigating how much Fujitsu was aware of the problems with its software, the risk of false reporting and what could have been done to prevent the tragedy.
Gareth Jenkins, the former chief architect at Fujitsu, was due to give evidence at the statutory public inquiry on 6 and 7 July this year. So far, he has not been able to do so. Some 4,767 documents, including some that are significant to Jenkins’s evidence, were only received from Post Office at 10.32 pm on 5 July, allowing no time for lawyers to analyse them. He was scheduled to give evidence after the summer break, and he subsequently asked for a guarantee that his testimony could not be given as evidence against him, which was denied. We are still waiting to hear from him. I therefore support amendment 1, tabled by the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), which would ensure that we know the whole truth about the alleged errors carried out by Post Office Ltd, beyond Horizon. All potential victims of the practices of Post Office Ltd must get the justice they deserve.
Beyond that, real questions need to be asked of successive UK Governments—whether Labour or Tory—who allowed the scandal to fester under their watch. As the sole shareholder in Post Office Ltd, successive UK Governments have utterly failed in their oversight of the company, allowing the most widespread miscarriage of justice to continue for two decades.
Even in more recent times, the current UK Government have allowed repeated scandals to occur, with bonusgate being one of the many despicable recent episodes that have brought yet more shame to a once trusted national institution. The Secretary of State for Business and Trade described the debacle as
“news to us as Ministers.”
However, documents obtained through a freedom of information request by campaigner Eleanor Shaikh show that Ministers and officials endorsed the Post  Office inquiry metric as part of their approval of its chief executive officer and chief financial officer in the transformation scheme. A letter requesting approval was sent to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy’s permanent secretary and accounting officer in July 2021, outlining details comprehensively. The document was then sent to the Secretary of State for Energy and Industrial Strategy, and Ministers gave their endorsement five months after the inquiry became statutory. Likewise, the UK Government Investments representative on the board was well aware of the inquiry’s sub-metric.
It is absolutely clear that Post Office Ltd’s current system of governance needs to be addressed immediately to ensure a greater level of oversight and transparency in decision making by the Government and the UKGI representative on the Post Office Ltd board. There are questions to be answered about Post Office’s co-operation with the inquiry and its past and present relationship with Fujitsu. The management of Post Office Ltd has been exposed, and questions remain over its continued stewardship of our post office network. Indeed, I became interested in post offices because of the decline in the network, knowing nothing of Horizon at the time.
Earlier this year, London Economics produced a report showing that the social value delivered by Post Office is 16 and a half times greater than the financial input it receives from the Government. Closures have picked away at the post office network, as the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam mentioned. The Department for Business and Trade must do more to protect communities.
I extend my sympathies to the victims of this scandal, who still endure the trauma inflicted by Post Office Ltd. The Minister is right: we are all here today to make sure that people get the compensation they deserve. However, some of the figures are sobering. I understand that some of the problems may be due to the difficulty of making a claim in the first place, and I thank Dan Neidle for his exposure of that.
I pay tribute to all the campaigners. I will also make a special apology—to Alan Bates—because at one point, when I did not realise the significance of what had happened, I said that I did not believe in witch hunts. I still do not believe in them, but evidence is building against those who have made serious mistakes and errors, and who, in some cases, have hidden facts.
I was pleased to hear the Minister talk about corporate and individual responsibility, which is really important. I thank him for saying that compensation claims will still be pursued vigorously. This is really a technical Bill to allow payments to carry on, and they must do so as speedily and efficiently as possible. Nothing can make up for the trauma that so many people have gone through, but we need to compensate those who have suffered, and we need to compensate them properly, well and timeously.

Kevan Jones: I declare an interest as a member of the Horizon compensation advisory board. I rise to welcome the Bill and the reasoning behind it, as outlined by the Minister. I must say that the Minister is committed to ensuring that we make the scheme as fair and equitable as possible. As he said, it would have been unjust to have left the sword of  Damocles that was the arbitrary deadline of next August hanging over the heads of potential claimants. It is right that the Bill is brought forward. I echo the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) that we do not want to see delays in compensation, but, because of the trauma that individuals are involved in and the complexity, some cases may take longer than others.
May I, at this point, put on the record my thanks to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam? Having dealt with the issue for more years than I care to remember—and, I must say, having dealt with a succession of useless Ministers who literally accepted what their civil servants said and continued to parrot that, even when they knew that the Horizon system was at fault—it is a credit to him that he was the only one who grasped the situation and got to understand its complexities. I also welcomed the private chats we had on some of the issues. He is right that the scheme is not easy to implement, but he was willing to question things that were clearly wrong and to put it through. I would not want to make the Minister blush, but if people want an example of a Minister doing his job and having something to look back on and be proud of, they should look at his response to this matter. I do not want to downgrade the present Minister, who has picked up the baton and, as the poacher turned gamekeeper that he is, is following through to ensure that the scheme and justice are delivered for those individuals affected by Horizon.
As has been mentioned, I first got involved because of a constituent called Tom Brown, who came to my surgery. I say to any new Members in the House that if they ever get a case in a constituency surgery and think, “This sounds complex, but it just seems wrong,” they should dig into it and stick with it. Tom was a sub-postmaster in North Kenton in Newcastle. He had worked at other post offices before that, but he and his wife had bought a sub-post office in North Kenton for £150,000, which he saw as an investment not only for him but for his family’s future. He ran it with his wife; they had a convenience store, and it was successful until the Horizon computer system came along. Like many victims, he was given initial training on the system, but it came out in the inquiry that it was completely inadequate.
Not long after Horizon was installed, Tom started having shortfalls. If they were small, many people just made them up, but in his case they got to £85,609.03. He could not reconcile it, despite going to the helpline and saying, “Look, something’s wrong here.” The helpline just ignored him. In November 2008, two Post Office employees came along to do a branch audit, which is when the nightmare for Tom and his family began. He was accused of stealing the £85,000. Despite his efforts to explain the shortfalls in the system, no one listened, nor did they listen in the many other victims’ cases.
Tom had invested in property: he had his business, investment properties and his own house. He had the indignity not only of his name being in the local newspapers as someone who had stolen £85,000 but of having his home searched by the Post Office, looking—strangely enough—for the £85,000, as though he had it stuffed under the bed. The indignity of that is remarkable. We must remember that these individuals were pillars of the local community; people looked up to them and respected them in their communities—and that was suddenly all torn away.
In his witness statement to the inquiry, Tom describes the sensational media wildfire, which was disturbing for him and for his family. He is open in his statement that he considered suicide—sadly, we have heard that at least four people have taken their own lives. He did not because of his strong family. The irony of his situation is that when the Post Office prosecuted him, the case went to Crown court only to be withdrawn on the day it was heard. He was found not guilty of false accounting because no evidence was put forward. The judge said in his summing up:
“I’m sure you’ll be taking this further, Mr Brown”.
By that stage, Tom was left bankrupt. He was accused of stealing £85,000, his name sullied. That led to hardship not just for him but for his family. He had to sell his properties and his business, after it floundered. His son had to take him in and also got into financial difficulty, borrowing money to support his father, and they ended up in social housing in my constituency. The family were completely broken. I want to stress this aspect: we talk about the individual victim, but the effect on their families must be highlighted and compensated. Some family members need counselling because of the effects on them, and Tom’s witness statement to the inquiry sums that up well.
Sadly, Tom did not live to see the compensation he deserved, nor to see his name cleared and those involved in his case brought to justice; he passed away a few weeks ago. I add my condolences to his family. His name is still there with Alan Bates, who has been mentioned, and the others who fought this case.
Would we have got to where we are today without those people? No, we would not, because even when the Post Office knew that the system was flawed, it spent £100 million of taxpayers’ money defending the indefensible in court as a result of the litigation brought by Alan Bates and the rest of the 555. The tactic of the Post Office was very clear: it was to use public money—our money—to outspend the postmasters who had taken it to court. That was outrageous, given that it subsequently came to light, during the inquiry and also in court, that the Post Office knew that it did not have a leg to stand on. It was forced to settle out of court because it had run out of money, which was the intention of the Post Office and the Department that was in charge at the time.
Do we need to get this system moving? Yes, we do. Having been on the advisory board, I understand the complexities of the scheme. Would we start where we are starting now if we were starting afresh? No, we would not—but 60 people have already died, including Tom, and it is imperative now for us to try to get this compensation paid to their families and to the other postmasters. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam also said that we would not have started here. We now have the group litigation scheme, the historical shortfall scheme and the overturned convictions scheme. Is it too late to try to pull those three into one? I personally think it is, and I do not know what the Minister’s civil servants would do if we suggested it. In any event, I do not think that it is the way forward.
One thing that I do welcome is the appointment of Sir Ross Cranston as the final arbitrator in the process. If people are not happy about the levels of compensation they receive, there will be that final independent arbitrator. There has always been this point about independence.  Do any of those involved trust the Post Office? No, they do not. Do I trust the Post Office? No, I still do not trust it, given the way in which it has handled this matter.

Paul Scully: The right hon. Gentleman is making a great speech, and he has got to the crux of the situation, by talking about trust. The postmasters have had plenty of words—20 years of seemingly reassuring words—that they cannot trust, and it is incumbent on all of us to act.

Kevan Jones: I entirely agree, and I think that that is how the hon. Gentleman helped—in trying to cut through the words. But whatever I say, he says or anyone says, are these people ever going to trust the Post Office? In his statement to the inquiry, Tom said:
“I think the Post Office are the most corrupt organisation around.”
I have to say that I do not disagree. This was not about people making mistakes; in public administration, people do make mistakes. This was clearly a cover-up conspiracy and, I think, downright criminality on the part of certain individuals. I will return shortly to how we are to get justice in respect of those individuals, but the Bill is about compensation, and I think it important that we take this step forward.
I want to pay tribute to some of those who have kept the fire burning over the years, including Lord Arbuthnot —James Arbuthnot, who has been a tireless campaigner on this issue since he was in the House of Commons—Nick Wallis, and Karl Flinders of Computer Weekly. They have done great work in pushing the issue forward, and they need to be thanked for it.
I also want to raise an important point in respect of the schemes we have now. I did not think that new developments could come about, but they have. This is relevant to amendment 1, which I tabled but which was unfortunately not selected for technical reasons. Lo and behold, a few months ago I learned that there had been another scheme, which could almost be described as a son or daughter of Horizon but which preceded it. It was trialled in the north-east of England. The only reason I knew about it was that I was contacted by the son of a lady somewhere in the north-east—she does not want any publicity—who wanted me to come and see her. When I went to see her, I thought, “This sounds like a Horizon case but it can’t be because the dates are wrong.” Lo and behold, we now learn that 300 trials were done, mainly in the north-east, before Horizon. That lady will not get compensation. She was prosecuted and I understand that another case has now been found. This also came out at the inquiry. When all the publicity came out about Horizon, why did no one come forward and say, “By the way, do you realise we had another system on the go at the beginning and we prosecuted people under that system?”
I know the Minister is on to this, and I am certain that the advisory board is as well. There are potentially other people who were prosecuted because of another failed system that was not Horizon. That needs addressing as matter of urgency because there are people out there who are clearly innocent. I think the lady I have just mentioned could be described as having post-traumatic stress disorder. She was completely mentally scarred by the episode. If we can get justice for that individual and others, we should certainly do so.

Jim Shannon: I commend the right hon. Gentleman for making that salient point. I am aware that there are many affected postmasters and families in Northern Ireland, including some in my constituency. What they are seeking is a timescale for when all postmasters in Northern Ireland—and, indeed, across this great United Kingdom—can expect to receive their compensation, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is going to ask for that now. Those in my constituency have not received any word about compensation yet. Does he agree that when the Minister sums up the debate, we want to be given the timescale for the compensation? We want to know that right away.

Kevan Jones: Yes. We now have this Bill and we have got the compensation scheme moving, and I think we need to move very quickly to get the money paid out.
Another issue relates to overturned convictions. Nearly 900 people have been convicted, 700-odd through the Post Office. Some of them in Northern Ireland and Scotland were convicted under a different system. Some were prosecuted by the DWP, for example. I will not rehearse the arguments now, but only 93 of those convictions have been overturned and that does not sit right with me. Somebody asked me why people had not come forward, but they are never going to come forward. They have been so scarred and traumatised by the court process that they will never go anywhere near a court process again. We need to tackle that, and I will cover that when I speak to my amendment later.
I welcome this Bill. My final point is on responsibility. If this scandal had happened in the United States, which takes a very different approach to financial crime and misdemeanours, people would be in jail by now. The evidence is all there, and I accept that Sir Wyn is slowly prising it out of the Post Office, but there are individuals such as Paula Vennells, who, ironically, got a CBE in 2019 for services to the Post Office, even though she oversaw all that was going on. I have written on numerous occasions to the Honours Forfeiture Committee to get that taken off her, but I have had no answer.
If there is one broad lesson to be learned from this scandal by Ministers and future Ministers, it is that when the state does something like this that is so wrong, there should be no hiding place for anyone who has been responsible. Sir Wyn is doing a great job in his inquiry to unearth some of these things. Fujitsu has been mentioned. That is an organisation that definitely has some huge questions to answer.
I think there are two parts to this. First, we have to get the compensation paid. The Minister has committed to trying to put people in the position they would have been in if they had not been affected, which is what we need to do. Will the compensation ever fully compensate them for what they have been through? No, it will not—they will have a scar—but it will help. The other important thing is that the people responsible should be brought to justice and have their day in court. Clearly, they need to answer for it.
I finish with the final line of Tom Brown’s evidence to the public inquiry, at paragraph 89:
“I would…like to find out who was responsible once and for all and to see someone take accountability for the wrong doings of the Post Office.”
I could not have put it better myself.

Sammy Wilson: I will be brief. First, I want to congratulate the Minister and his predecessor, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), on the way they have progressed this issue, which has caused so much devastation for businesses, families and individuals right across the United Kingdom. People who thought they had a good business, worked at it, invested in it and trusted the Post Office to do right by them, found that they were betrayed by those who knew that mistakes were being made and knew that the system was faulty, yet, rather than admit to the failings, decided to pursue innocent individuals.
I do not want to elaborate on the stories we have heard today, but this Government body and its officials wilfully pursued cases that they knew would destroy individuals, families and reputations. As has been said, postmasters and postmistresses are often regarded as pillars of society in their village or locality, and they suddenly found themselves painted as if they were thieves.
It was known from an early stage, it would seem, that the accusations were totally false. One postmaster said to me, “Surely somebody in the Post Office must have known at an early stage that it was not one or two individuals but hundreds of people who had served blamelessly for many years. Did they think a virus had come into the system and turned them all into criminals? Somebody must have asked questions.” It seems that someone did ask questions and that, as the inquiry has shown, it was known at an early stage that there were flaws in the system and the system was wrong. Even when it was found that these people were right, tens of millions of pounds were spent on pursuing them through the courts, as that was an easy way to shut them up, rather than admitting that mistakes had been made.
I welcome the three things the Minister has said today, although he will have to come back on a regular basis to reassure us. The Bill extends the period in which payments can be made, but we cannot keep delaying compensation for the many who have been left destitute, had their reputation ruined and lost their business. Although the Minister has indicated that, technically, all the Bill will do is allow the compensation period to be extended in case that is needed, I hope that provision will not be used—I accept his assurance that he does not intend for it to be—to drag out the compensation scheme, and that it is only for cases with complexities that will take time to work out. I hope he will come back regularly between now and August to update us on the number of cases that have been dealt with, settled and sorted out.
I welcome the point the Minister made about corporate and individual responsibility. We need to have that, because it was clear that individuals in the organisation knew that what was being done to sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses was wrong and yet the corporate response was, “Let’s not admit anything.” As a result, some people were dragged through the courts and finished up with prison sentences. It does not really matter what level of compensation we give, because how can we compensate for broken marriages, ruined reputations, wrongful imprisonment, premature deaths and even driving people to suicide? No level of monetary compensation will ever deal with that, which is why it is important that those responsible are held to account,   that there is no hiding place for them and that we do not see the affront we have had so far of the head of the Post Office at the time actually being rewarded. Indeed, not so long ago a Member drew to the House’s attention the fact that the Post Office bonus scheme meant that individuals in the Post Office were actually being given bonuses for giving information to the inquiry that they ought to have been giving in any case. What the Minister said on that is important.
I noted the Minister’s comment that taxpayers should not have to bear the burden of the money that has to be paid out. Fujitsu knew that its system was flawed and it has not been held to account. The Minister said that,
“where responsibility can be assigned”,
the Government would seek to have compensation drawn from Fujitsu. The evidence given to the inquiry already shows that a large degree of responsibility can be assigned to Fujitsu. If that is the case, I trust that the Government will be rigorous in pursing that company. It seems odd that a company that supplied such a system should have had its contract renewed not so long ago. We need greater scrutiny of that and we certainly need to see not only individuals held responsible, but the company that supplied the faulty software held responsible for making some of the financial compensation to these individuals.
It is good that we have the Minister and his predecessor, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, here today. They are to be congratulated on the rigorous way in which they have pursued this matter. It gives hope that at least this issue is not going to be ignored, but it is important that we have regular updates so that the public can have assurance that Parliament and the Government are not ignoring it.

Nigel Evans: I call Gerald Jones to make the last Back-Bench contribution.

Gerald Jones: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I rise to make a brief contribution. As we know, the Post Office Horizon scandal is one of the most insidious injustices our country has ever seen. The Post Office was one of Britain’s most well-known and trusted brands, but the sheer scale of false prosecutions and the aggressive way in which they were pursued has destroyed its reputation. But more than that, it destroyed the reputations, lives and livelihoods of former sub-postmasters who had been upstanding members of their local communities. Post Office managers decided to aggressively pursue prosecutions against sub-postmasters even when they knew that the Horizon system had deep-rooted faults. The Post Office compounded that by telling individual sub-postmasters that they were the only ones experiencing problems. That was clearly not the case. Quite simply, those cold, calculated decisions ruined lives, including those of some of my constituents in Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney. I have learned from them, over a number of years, about the impact on their lives, livelihoods, mental health and wellbeing. The fact that the Post Office was able to mount prosecutions in such a cavalier way is simply shocking.
Today, we are talking about compensation for former sub-postmasters. Members from across the House are clear that the compensation is for wrongful and malicious prosecution, and that getting compensation to all  victims as quickly as possible is vital if we are to right  the wrongs of that injustice. As the shadow Minister said, Labour will work with the Government to do whatever is required to deliver justice, and I will support the Bill.
However, the Government originally committed to resolving all compensation cases by Christmas. It appears that that has not happened, so will the Minister explain why that target was missed and how the extra time provided in the Bill will help to deliver justice to everyone as quickly as possible? As we all know, it simply cannot come soon enough.

Sarah Jones: It is timely to be having the debate on the day we rise for Christmas, as we know that there will be many decent people affected who, 20 years on, are spending yet another Christmas without proper compensation. It has been a short but sobering debate on the victims of the Horizon scandal and how the Government intend to ensure justice is delivered. I am pleased to sit opposite the Minister again and to hear his commitment to a full and fair process, and I am pleased that the Bill is going through this place. However, the need to extend Government powers to deliver the compensation scheme is, of course, disappointing news to those affected.
I will not keep the House long to summarise our support for the Bill, to thank all those who have campaigned for so long and to ask the Minister to respond to some important points that have been raised. As Members have set out, the Bill extends the powers for the Government to deliver one of the compensation schemes for some of the victims of the Horizon scandal beyond August 2024. I join others in thanking those who have got us to this point. I pay tribute to the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance, which has campaigned for decades for compensation and justice. We could not have a debate in this place on this topic without thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who has been tireless in his work. I thank Lord Arbuthnot for his work in this area, and many others.
The Horizon scandal is one of the most insidious injustices our country has ever seen. Getting compensation to all victims as quickly as possible is vital if we are to right this injustice. As the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali), made clear at the start of the debate, Labour will work with the Government to do whatever is required to deliver justice.
There were some good speeches. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) worked hard as a Minister and is right to be proud of what he did in this area. It is good to see that he has eased himself back into the Back Benches. I noted his praise, which is increasingly rare, for Boris Johnson for starting the process for the inquiry. I am sure the Minister noted his lesson that if we were doing this from scratch, the Business Department would perhaps have run all the compensation schemes in the first place. The hon. Gentleman is right that we talk about doing things “at pace” in this place all the time, but we just mean quickly. We need to keep up the speed, which has been sadly lacking, given that we are 20 years on from the original scandal.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham gave a full, comprehensive and compelling speech. His quotes from his constituent Tom Brown were very moving,  given that his constituent did not survive to receive his compensation. My right hon. Friend spelled out the indignity of his experience, describing how he was the pillar of his community, and how awful the situation had been for him and his family. I noted my right hon. Friend’s suggestion about the need for counselling for some people, because this has been extraordinarily impactful—way beyond financial terms.
My right hon. Friend also talked about the lessons that the Government need to learn. I noted his advice for Ministers and future Ministers. Without jumping to any conclusions, Mr Deputy Speaker, I took that advice, as did the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow. He talked compellingly about the clear evidence that the Post Office knew what the problems were, yet still spent all that money defending the indefensible. He was right to make that point so powerfully.
Questions about Fujitsu and others were well made by the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones) made a good final speech, in which he called on the Minister to explain why the target has been missed and what more can be done.
This may be a relatively straightforward, simple piece of legislation, but it does relate, as all Members have said, to one of the UK’s most widespread miscarriages of justice. We have heard tales of people who have been affected. So many of them spent their 60th birthday in prison as a result of errors. Other people lost their entire life savings repaying shortfalls. My hon. Friend the shadow Minister talked about Seema Misra, who was pregnant with her second child when she was convicted. She had an absolutely awful time. Local press reports at the time described her as “a pregnant thief”, which is horrific. We need to keep those stories at the heart of everything we do while we try to make sure that people get the compensation they deserve.
Mr Deputy Speaker, we support the passage of this Bill, but we do have some questions that we would like the Minister to address, many of which have been set out today. The key one is what the Government will do in this extra time to ensure that compensation is delivered as quickly as possible. The Minister said that the Government are setting a target of 90% being completed within 40 working days. He used the expression, “promptly without being rushed”. Will he elaborate a bit on what that means in terms of the resource and the capacity that will hopefully increase the number of cases moving through the system to get to a happy conclusion?
Alan Bates, who has been widely praised in this debate and who leads the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance, is reported as saying:
“It’s all well and good extending the deadline, but the Government has to try to meet the current deadline. The lives of the victims who have lived with this for a long time are not being extended.”
That is a good and sobering point. It would be helpful if the Minister said more about how he is going to speed up that work.
The Minister also made broader remarks. Can he clarify from his earlier remarks how many people have reached a settlement using the £600,000 offer that he announced? He said something about a proportion, but it would be helpful if he could give us a number.   Does he have any estimate of the proportion of victims that he considers to be fully compensated? Does he have a timescale for the completion of compensation for those he considers not to be fully compensated? When does he hope to have all this done by?
The Minister has been asked how he will ensure that mistakes like this are not made again. Obviously, we have the inquiry, which is carrying on at its own pace. I do not know whether he has done any work on learning those lessons, so that we do not make mistakes like this again.
As we close the debate, I wish to end by again putting on the record our thoughts for all the victims who have not had their cases solved and who face another Christmas without justice.

Kevin Hollinrake: With the leave of the House, it is a pleasure to conclude this debate. We have heard insightful contributions from right hon. and hon. Members across the House, many of whom have championed this cause and campaigned for justice on behalf of postmasters for many years. I pay particular tribute to the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Lucy Allan), the hon. Members for Jarrow (Kate Osborne), for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) and for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) and others, who have demonstrated the best of cross-party campaigning in the interests of those affected by this scandal.
I have addressed the House many times on the subject of the Post Office Horizon scandal, both as a Back Bencher and now as the responsible Minister, and I want to respond to the specific points raised in the debate. The shadow Minister who opened the debate, the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali), rightly talked about further delays. I want to stress that this is not about further delays, but about preventing an arbitrary date being set, so that people whose claim has not been submitted or is not at the stage where it has been completed or settled can still get compensation.
I say to the other shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones), as I said in my earlier remarks, that the commitment is that we will get 90% of offers out in 40 working days. We are doing a number of things to expedite settlements and accepted claims, not least the fixed-sum award for overturned convictions. She asked about the number of people who have taken that route. For confidentiality reasons, we do not think it is right to state the actual number, but it is a significant proportion, so certainly it is a route that many people think is the right one for them to take. Obviously that is a matter for the individual, and claimants can pursue the standard full assessment process if they feel that is their best option.
Not everything is within our gift, and that is one of the frustrations that we have, because these claims can be complex and require legal input from the claimant’s side. It can take time for the claims to be compiled before they are submitted. That is one of the reasons why we think it is right to delay the long-stop date of 7 August next year.
The hon. Member for Croydon Central asked about the resources and about how we will expedite the settlements. She may be aware that we have recently committed to additional resources for the Post Office. Part of that is to increase the resources committed towards the inquiry, but another part is committed to compensation. We think all the resources are there to get this money paid out within the timeframes we have set out.
I pay tribute again to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) for all of the work he did on this scheme. It is perhaps a little bit ironic that I used to push him from the Back Benches and now he is pushing me from the Back Benches on a similar issue. He is a very sad loss to the Front Benches in this House; he did a fantastic job and he speaks with great authority on this subject. As he says, the best work he did in the Department he attributes to this particular area, so I thank him for all he has done.
My hon. Friend asks whether we need to extend this the long-stop date and why. It is very much a long-stop position. We want to get the payments out before 7 August but, as Sir Wyn Williams advised, this is the right thing to do. My hon. Friend also asked whether, if we were to start again, which I do not think is the right thing to do, we would do things in this way, with three different compensation schemes. I think Sir Wyn Williams said something very similar: we would not do it like that, but all together in one single scheme. However, we are not there and it is right to push ahead now with the work we are doing in this form.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is not in his place, said that we need to go faster, not slower. We are not going slower; we are going faster, and that is what we are keen to do. The same issue was raised by the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), who rightly pushed us to make sure we are delivering this at pace. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam also talked about doing things at pace; “pace” is a word I use a lot in my Department—my officials will probably support that remark—so I totally agree with him. If I may say so, I think the pace in a Department should be dictated by Ministers, so it is my responsibility to make sure that the schemes are delivered at pace.
My hon. Friend wished the House a merry Christmas; I am pleased, and I think we should all be pleased, that 27 families have had convictions overturned and may be able to enjoy their Christmas a little bit more than previous Christmases. Their ability not only to receive compensation, but to move on and move away from some of the trials and tribulations that they have faced in getting compensation and getting justice, is welcomed by everyone in the House.
As always, I thank the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw for the work she does on the all-party parliamentary group on post offices. She pointed out the very significant value that post offices have in communities. I could not agree with her more that the disclosure areas were unacceptable. That should not have happened and we made that very clear to Post Office management. I agree with her entirely on Fujitsu. Anybody who is shown to be responsible for the scandal should be held accountable, and that may also include compensation. We have stated that on the Floor of the House on a number of occasions. She refers to senior executives in terms of the inquiry sub-metric, having repaid bonuses voluntarily. Those are not something we  would want to see in future. I also agree with her and others, including the right hon. Member for North Durham, about some of the people who have been instrumental in this matter outside this House. She referred to Dan Neidle. Nick Wallis, Karl Flinders and Tom Witherow have also been important contributors in ensuring that sub-postmasters get the justice they deserve.
I thank the right hon. Member for North Durham again for all his work and for his work on the advisory board. He talks about a sword of Damocles and is right to say that we are removing it. He speaks very movingly about Tom Brown and what happened to him: the indignity of having his home searched, hardship, bankruptcy, the impact on his family, and his reputation in the community. All were intolerable situations. He sadly passed away prior to receiving compensation. In my constituency, Sam Harrison, a sub-postmaster in Nawton, near Helmsley, went through a similar set of circumstances, certainly in relation to financial difficulty. She sadly passed away earlier this year without receiving compensation. There is a huge human cost, as well as a financial cost. I talked to the advisory board about potential counselling that might be made available to sub-postmasters. We also talked about restorative justice. Sir Wyn Williams has referred to that and it is something we are keen to look at.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned a predecessor to the Horizon scheme in the north-east. If we are on the same page, I understand that was a pilot scheme for Horizon, so we are confident that our current compensation schemes can deliver outcomes and compensation for the individuals he refers to, but if he does not agree with that I am very happy to have a conversation with him.

Kevan Jones: That is welcome, but I think the Minister knows my views on the advisory board. We need to try to find out exactly how many people were prosecuted and in what circumstances. It shocked me, and I think the Minister too, that even with all the publicity about Horizon, no one actually said, “By the way, we had this scheme.” If it had not come out in the inquiry, or I had not intervened to see that individual in the north-east, would it just have been forgotten about?

Kevin Hollinrake: Those people will not be forgotten about. I am very happy to work with the right hon. Gentleman and the advisory board on any matter he raises with me. I think we are very like-minded on all the issues he has brought to us so far and we are keen to deliver solutions where we think they are required. I agree with him about Sir Ross Cranston. I worked with Sir Ross from the Back Benches. He came in with the review of the Lloyds-HBOS scheme and did a fantastic job. I also agree with him on holding individuals to account. Whether it be Lloyds, HBOS or Post Office Ltd, I do not think we will ever stop these things happening until we hold individuals to account. He talked about Paula Vennells’ CBE. I think Sir Tom Scholar, the head of the relevant body on the forfeiture of honours, has   said that we need to wait until the end of the inquiry to consider that, but it should certainly be looked at. I completely associate myself with the comments of the right hon. Gentleman’s former constituent Tom Brown in relation to holding people to account.
In response to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones), yes we are allowing ourselves extra timescales but we do not want to use them. On the Christmas deadline, I think we are on the same page on this. It was Christmas this year for the Horizon shortfall scheme. We have now delivered offers to 100% of those people who have applied through that scheme, which meets our objective. Nevertheless, many of those cases are complex and not everything is in our gift to ensure that claims are put in promptly so that they can be dealt with quickly.
I thank the right hon. Member for East Antrim for his kind words. I commit absolutely to giving regular updates to the House. I am very happy to come to speak to hon. Members about this, both on the Floor of the House and by other means. There are regular updates about compensation payments on the gov.uk website. I agree entirely with him about accountability and the need to ensure that the guilty are held responsible. He is right to say we will be rigorous with anybody who is shown to be guilty, including at Fujitsu. He is also right to say that there are some things associated with a tremendous scandal that we can never compensate people for. That is why we are here, keen to deliver a final resolution to these problems.
My Department and I continue to work hard to ensure that those affected by the Horizon scandal receive the full and fair compensation that they are owed. The Bill is just part of the action that the Government are taking to defend the interests of postmasters. I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Committee of the whole House (Order, this day).
Further proceedings on the Bill stood postponed (Order, this day).

Post Office (Horizon System) Compensation Bill: Money

King’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Post Office (Horizon System) Compensation Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State under, or in connection with, schemes or other arrangements—
(1) to compensate persons affected by previous versions of the computer system known as Horizon (and sometimes referred to as Legacy Horizon, Horizon Online or HNG-X) used by Post Office Limited;
(2) to compensate persons in respect of other matters identified in High Court judgments given in proceedings relating to the Horizon system.—(Aaron Bell.)
Question agreed to.

Post Office (Horizon System) Compensation Bill

Proceedings resumed (Order, this day).
Considered in Committee
[Mr Nigel Evans in the Chair]

Nigel Evans: I remind Members that, in this capacity, I am not the Deputy Speaker, but “Chair”, “Mr Chairman” or whatever you want—just not “Mr Deputy Speaker.”

Aaron Bell: Nige?

Nigel Evans: And not Nige, either.

Clause 1 - Expenditure in connection with compensation schemes relating to Post Office Horizon system etc.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Nigel Evans: With this it will be convenient to consider clause 2 stand part.

Kevin Hollinrake: Thank you, Chair Nige—el.
We had a useful Second Reading debate. I am grateful for the constructive contributions from Members across the House. I welcome the chance for a more detailed examination of the Bill in this Committee of the whole House.
Clause 1 provides the continuing legal basis to pay compensation to members of the group litigation order scheme beyond the current deadline of 7 August 2024. As we have discussed, that is the deadline by which the Government aim to have concluded compensation payments to GLO members, but that power removes any doubt as to our ability to fund compensation beyond that date should it prove necessary.
Clause 1 does that by empowering the Secretary of State to make payments
“under, or in connection with, schemes or other arrangements—
(a) to compensate persons affected by the Horizon system;
(b) to compensate persons in respect of other matters identified in High Court judgments given in proceedings relating to the Horizon system.”
That definition provides additional flexibility beyond the specific GLO scheme to facilitate compensation payments related to Horizon should it ever be required in future.
Clause 2 sets out the short title of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1 - Eligibility of Potential Claimants

“The Secretary of State must amend the schemes to which this Act applies to ensure that—
(a) all persons affected by the Horizon system who have had their convictions quashed are compensated on the same basis, regardless of the rationale of the decision to quash the conviction; and
(b) all persons affected by the Horizon system with extant convictions relating to the Horizon system are compensated on the same basis as those claimants with quashed convictions, with the exception of those claimants whose convictions were based on clear, compelling and corroborated evidence.”—(Mr Kevan Jones.)
Brought up, and read the First time.

Kevan Jones: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I rise to speak to new clause 1, which stands in my name and those of the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), the right hon. Members for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), and my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne). The clause would do two things: first, it would provide that all those with overturned convictions would receive compensation on the same basis, including the so-called public interest cases. Secondly, it would provide for all those with convictions that have not been overturned to receive compensation on the same basis as those with overturned convictions. I will deal with both issues in turn.
Reference has already been made to the number of overturned convictions that have gone through the Court of Appeal. Lord Arbuthnot and I approached the criminal cases review body about 10 years ago to highlight the injustice of these cases. In 2020, the Criminal Cases Review Commission started referring cases to the courts to overturn the convictions—the number of Post Office Horizon cases sent back to the courts has already made this the most widespread miscarriage of justice seen by the CCRC. Many of those cases have been described in quite a lot of detail today, with individuals such as pregnant women and others being sent to prison, including individuals who have since had their convictions overturned.
In April 2021, 39 former sub-postmasters had their convictions quashed by the Court of Appeal. The court concluded that the Post Office should not have prosecuted them in the first place, and found the Post Office’s conduct to be
“an affront to the conscience of the court”.
What has subsequently come out in the inquiry makes me wonder how on earth some of these people slept at night, knowing what they knew at the time while pursuing those individuals in court. Earlier, I made reference to Paula Vennells, who I understand is also an ordained Church of England priest—she clearly did not extend her godliness and forgiveness to those who were clearly innocent, but who she was quite content to see prosecuted. As far back as 2011, if not earlier, she knew that the Post Office system was not infallible, as other things possibly are in biblical spheres.
As the right hon. Member for East Antrim said, the idea that we suddenly had a huge influx of kleptomaniacs working for the Post Office—that all these individuals were somehow guilty—was absurd. It should have rung alarm bells, but it did not. The Post Office went on  regardless. Not only did it pursue people and take them through the courts, but it took individuals such as Tom Brown to court and then, at the last minute, supplied no evidence, having already ruined those people’s reputations and lives.
As has been said, 93 individuals have had their convictions overturned so far, but there are many more people whose convictions remain unchallenged. We have had some debate on the advisory board about the numbers—I think the figure for the Post Office is about 700, but another 200-odd cases relating to Horizon issues were prosecuted by other bodies, including the Department for Work and Pensions. It worries me that only 93 of the 700 Post Office cases have been overturned.
Some people might ask, “Why haven’t these individuals come forward?” Having met many of them—those who have had their convictions overturned, or other victims of the sub-postmasters injustice—I think that they just want to close this chapter of their lives. They are not going to go anywhere near a court, and in some cases they have passed away. However, I urge anyone who was prosecuted to please try to come forward, although I know how difficult that is for some individuals. It is to the credit of the Minister and the Department that they have tried to reach out to some of these people but, as I say, having met them, I know that is not very easy.
I come next to paragraph (a) of new clause 1, on compensation on the same basis. Where an appeal takes place depends on where a conviction was made. If an individual is convicted at the Crown court, they can go to the Court of Appeal, and this does not require a retrial. However, if an individual is convicted in a magistrates court, the appeal is taken to a Crown court, and the case must be retried. If the respondent—in this case, the Post Office—does not volunteer to retry the case, the judge could actually quash the conviction.
Such public interest cases receive lower compensation than other overturned convictions, because the Post Office deems that in many cases people pleaded guilty on false confessions and that was the basis of their conviction. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) is not here today, but we have heard before from him about how he represented one individual who was actually advised to plead guilty to get a lesser sentence. Some individuals did plead guilty, but in many cases that was done on legal advice. We know that many sub-postmasters had already been traumatised by having false accusations made against them and, as I say, they were advised to plead guilty to get a lesser punishment. Unfortunately, in many cases that did not lead to a lesser punishment, but it does not change the fact that those convictions are simply unsafe.
Five individuals have had convictions overturned so far on that basis, yet despite, having their convictions overturned in these so-called public interest cases, they are entitled to less compensation than others. I think that injustice needs to be addressed. As the Minister knows, the advisory board, of which I am a member, has addressed this. In the minutes of our September meeting, we say that the approach fails
“to put these victims of overturned convictions in the position which they would have been had they not been prosecuted… the rationales for treating them differently in effect re-victimised them; and it was also contrary to the stated intention…not to run schemes on too legalistic a basis.”
It also goes to the heart of what I think the Minister is committed to, which is making sure that people are put back into the position they would have been in if they had not been involved in the Horizon compensation scheme.
Paragraph (b) of new clause 1 relates to sub-postmasters who were convicted, but have yet to have their convictions overturned. As I have said, there are about 900 individuals who were convicted on the back of Horizon-related issues, and only 93 of them have had them overturned. That leaves quite a few hundred people who have been criminalised by the system and whose convictions have not been overturned. They are therefore unable to get compensation, even though this has not only devastated their lives through having a criminal conviction, but caused related problems of loss of income and other things.
Overturning convictions takes time, and for many, as I have said, it involves a process that they will simply not pursue, because that will reopen wounds that are already deep. When we speak to some of the individuals, they say they just want to close that part of the lives. In many cases, they are terrified of any form of publicity around these cases, because they do not want to be re-victimised, as I have said. New clause 1 would entitle all those with Horizon-related convictions to compensation on the same basis as those who have had their convictions overturned. I know that is possibly a radical solution. There will, of course, be a small number of people who did wrong, so it is right to exclude people when there is clear and compelling evidence of wrongdoing, and not simply the guilty plea.
There is a big difference between a false confession—a guilty plea put forward on legal advice—and someone who has clearly done something wrong. I would not want to suggest in any way that individuals who have done something wrong, when there is evidence behind that, should receive compensation. Some people might think that I am putting the cart before the horse, but it is important to bring the matter to the attention of the House. I do not accept—I think this was a strong feeling among members of the advisory board—that the other 700 or 800 people are somehow guilty of what they were accused of. Again, the advisory board raised that issue, and its minutes of an October meeting state clearly that
“as long as unjust convictions were maintained, which clearly involved 700 or 800 people, the means of delivering any compensation…is seemingly blocked. This is itself a major affront to a civilised state.”
That issue needs addressing. I know that the Minister will be meeting the Lord Chancellor, and those on the advisory body have asked to meet him as well.
There are broader issues around how the Post Office pursued some of the investigations. When we talk about people who are responsible, there is certainly a question mark over some of the lawyers involved in the process who might have some professional questions to answer. I think that automatically quashing those convictions is the way forward. I accept that the new clause would put the Minister behind the eight ball a little bit—I see his officials sweating in the Box—but I would like him to address the issues I have raised. He is well versed in a number of these questions, as we have gone round them in the advisory board, but if we are to bring closure to this issue, leaving the matter unresolved is not acceptable. I feel very strongly about that. I am not minded to press  the new clause to a vote, but I would like the Minister to reply to my points. If he cannot give an answer today, perhaps he could give us some idea of his thoughts on how we will resolve this issue.

Rushanara Ali: I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) for speaking powerfully to new clause 1. As the Minister heard, he raised the important point that 93 convictions have already been overturned, and there are hundreds of other people who just do not have the bandwidth to face the trauma of having to go through the legal process. It is imperative that the Government ensure that we get ahead of this issue and do not have to come back to the House to consider how we support that group of people who do not have the appropriate compensation programme in place. I encourage the Minister to consider the new clause seriously, and to work with us to ensure that we address the issues that that group of sub-postmasters face.
As my right hon. Friend pointed out, many of those sub-postmasters’ convictions were not built on sound evidence, and they were based on guilty pleas that they were advised to offer to reduce the sentences put before them for false reasons. As he also pointed out, we saw the spectre of the Post Office spending £100 million of public money—taxpayers’ money—to go after those sub-postmasters and cause the injustice that we are now trying to correct. It is therefore crucial that those who do not want to go through a legal process, because of the trauma they have faced, have the support of the Government in dealing with this issue separately through the Department’s work. My right hon. Friend is involved in that, working with the Minister, his officials and my party.
The new clause would ensure that the victims of all Horizon-related convictions that have not been quashed were entitled to compensation on the same basis, as has been pointed out. My right hon. Friend is not pressing the new clause to a vote, but I hope the Minister takes it seriously. I know that when he was on the Back Benches, he was a powerful campaigner on not only this issue but many others. As he is in a position of power, we look to him to make sure that the hundreds of others in this position are properly supported and protected, and that they do not face the double jeopardy of being victims without the compensation that the vast majority of them rightly deserve.

Kevin Hollinrake: I thank the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) for his new clause on the eligibility of convicted claimants to access compensation. Eligibility for compensation currently depends on a conviction being overturned. Appeals against convictions in a magistrates court go to the Crown court, where a retrial of the original offence is held. When deciding whether to oppose an appeal in the Crown court, the prosecution must apply the relevant test in the code for Crown prosecutors. That test has two parts. First, the evidence must be such that there is a realistic prospect of conviction. In some cases, that test is met because a prosecution concludes that Horizon evidence was not essential to the case. In those cases, the prosecution must consider the second test, which is whether it is in the public interest to hold a retrial. Retrying someone for an offence allegedly committed years ago, for which they have already been punished, would be harsh. In such  cases, the convictions are quashed on public interest, rather than on evidential grounds. Those cases differ from those where Horizon evidence was essential to the prosecution and an appeal is conceded by the Post Office.
In response to the right hon. Gentleman’s point about guilty pleas, there are cases where convictions have been made upon Horizon grounds where there were guilty pleas, but those have now been overturned. A guilty plea is not a barrier in itself. Notwithstanding that, it is open to claimants to submit a claim to the Post Office compensation scheme.
I recognise the concerns expressed by many about how the Post Office appears to have discharged its prosecutorial powers. Accordingly, we should remain open to considering any new evidence on liability in relation to these specific public interest cases. The right hon. Gentleman’s new clause refers to the payment of compensation to people with convictions. He is right to say that to date the courts have only overturned 93 cases, which is a small fraction of the more than 900 convictions prosecuted by Post Office and non-Post Office prosecutors during the time that Horizon was active that therefore could be unsafe.
I note that in addition to the work of the Criminal Cases Review Commission, the Post Office has adopted a more proactive approach to encouraging appeals by conducting a review of cases that have not yet been appealed. Independent counsel instructed by the Post Office will review cases to determine whether it already holds sufficient material to reach a view as to whether an individual’s case could be conceded, were an appeal to be brought. Where the Post Office identifies such cases, it will write to the postmaster to notify them that it would not oppose any future appeal based on the information it currently holds and to set out what to do next to initiate an appeal. I strongly share the advisory board’s desire to see more innocent postmasters receive compensation.
The right hon. Gentleman set out the letter that the advisory board recently sent to the Justice Secretary, and I completely understand the reluctance of postmasters to come forward to appeal their convictions. It must be very hard to trust authority when it is authority that has let them down for decades.
Some of the evidence given to the Williams inquiry about the way prosecutions were handled by Post Office is horrifying. There are obvious implications for the safety of prosecutions, and the way disclosures seem to have been handled meant that defence lawyers were inevitably fighting a losing battle. When a postmaster does get to the Court of Appeal, the onus is on them to show that their conviction is unsafe. I recognise all the difficulties that that burden of proof causes, especially with the passage of time leading to evidence being lost or destroyed. It does not seem right that these people face an uphill battle to clear their names.
Last week, the advisory board released some significant recommendations, and its contribution is very welcome. I am sure the right hon. Member for North Durham will be interested to note that I have already asked for legal advice on what more can be done in this area, so I want to look closely at the ideas he has floated and the ideas of the advisory board. I know that his ideas are  slightly different from those of the advisory board: the advisory board is looking at a blanket overturning of all convictions, whereas he seeks to compensate everybody, regardless of whether they have a conviction. Looking at his new clause, I question who would be the decision-making body that would confirm whether there was clear, compelling and corroborated evidence, which normally a court would do, so there is more work to do before we can get to a position that he and I are both happy with. I want to look very closely at his ideas and, as he rightly says, I am also talking to my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor.
I heard Flora Page, one of the claimants’ barristers, acknowledge on the “Today” programme that overturning all the convictions automatically raises some constitutional issues, so this may not be easy. However, I am determined to make it easier for people to come forward and for convictions to be overturned. I honestly do not think there is anything between the position of the right hon. Member for North Durham and my position in terms of our desire to see justice done and compensation paid. That is what he is calling for, and it is the Government’s job to try to achieve it. I promise him that we shall do our best. I hope that in the light of that assurance and the other assurances I have given, he will be willing to withdraw the new clause.

Nigel Evans: Mr Jones, you indicated that you did not wish to press the new clause to a vote. Is that still your intention?

Kevan Jones: It is, given the assurances that the Minister has given. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
Bill reported, without amendment.
Third Reading

Kevin Hollinrake: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
It is a great pleasure to be speaking on Third Reading. As we have heard this afternoon, this small but important Bill will ensure that victims of the Horizon scandal, who have suffered over a period of more than 20 years, are not timed out on their rightful compensation because of an arbitrary deadline.
This Government have responded to the concerns of campaigners and of the statutory inquiry under Sir Wyn Williams, which recommended this legislative action in its interim report in July. The Government will continue to ensure that GLO scheme members are compensated as quickly as possible, and our intention remains that this should be done by next August. However, this Bill will ensure that those entitled to compensation, who have waited too long for justice, are not rushed or bounced into making a decision on final settlements, which should be full and fair.
May I thank Opposition Members and the usual channels for enabling swift consideration of the Bill? I thank the House authorities, parliamentary staff, the Clerks, the doorkeepers, and Members of different parties who have participated in today’s debates. I also thank  my officials in the Department, who have worked hard to prepare and deliver this Bill at pace while continuing to run the GLO scheme.
The Bill is a further demonstration of the action that the Government are taking to address the wrongs of the past and to demonstrate that we are firmly on the side of postmasters. I commend it to the House.

Rushanara Ali: I am pleased that the Bill will pass and make at least some effort in addressing this injustice—to the extent that that is possible. What the sub-postmasters have gone through is horrific: as we have heard, they have suffered from years of uncertainty, years of not being listened to and years of not getting the justice they deserve. The Government must act quickly to process claims and provide the compensation that people desperately need. Even though the Bill will extend the compensation deadline, it is crucial that the Minister and his team act with urgency to ensure that this miscarriage of justice is addressed.
I thank the officials, the Clerks, you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and all those involved in getting the Bill through. Most importantly, I thank those who have campaigned tirelessly—the sub-postmasters and all those who have supported them in the legal system and beyond—to bring this issue to the fore. I also thank Members of this House and the other House for all that they have done collectively to bring it to our attention and the Government’s attention. We would not be here today if it was not for all those who campaigned. Let us be clear: we need to learn the lessons—I hope that the inquiry will help with that—to ensure that an injustice like this never happens again and that taxpayers’ money is not used to persecute people who should never have been pursued in such a way.

Kevan Jones: I welcome the Bill’s passage, which is another small step on a long road. I note what the Minister said about the response to the overturned convictions, which will be difficult, but, as he well knows, we have been there before over the last few years. Again, I thank him for his active involvement.
I also thank the other members of the advisory board—Professor Chris Hodges, Professor Richard Moorhead and Lord Arbuthnot—for their continuing work. We will no doubt be meeting shortly, in the new year, to ensure that we achieve what we all want, with people getting the compensation they deserve as well as the answers. I thank the Minister’s officials, and in particular Carl Creswell, Rob Brightwell and Eleri Wones. They may seem long-suffering given some of the expressions they give to advisory board members when we raise more work and more difficult tasks for them to do, but without their support we could not have got to where we are today. Officials are sometimes not thanked, but it is right to thank them for their work on this. Again, what the Minister and all of us want is for the system to work and for it to go some way to help heal the great wrong done to the individuals concerned.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for chairing our proceedings. I wish you, Mr Speaker, the Deputy Speakers and Members of the House all the best for Christmas and the new year. Let us hope that in 2024 we can have a  conclusion for all the compensation and, more importantly, Sir Wyn Williams’s review, which will certainly make for interesting reading.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Nigel Evans: I will just say a few words before we bring the parliamentary proceedings to a close for yet another year. On behalf of Mr Speaker and the entire Deputy Speaker team, I thank all those who work here in our Parliament for their service through the year. It does not matter in what capacity people work here; we are all a team. Without their support, we simply could not do the work that we do. A big thank you to all of you. I wish everybody—those who report on our proceedings and those who watch our proceedings diligently—a very merry Christmas and a happy new year. We do not know what next year will bring. I will carry on playing the national lottery; I will live in hope in 2024, if nothing else, as this year was not particularly fruitful—none the less, I will carry on. Merry Christmas everybody.

Petition - Local Government Funding and Food Voucher Provision

Zarah Sultana: I rise to present a petition on behalf of resident of the United Kingdom regarding local government funding and food voucher provision.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the United Kingdom
Declares that many families are living in poverty and that the school holidays in particular are a difficult time for families who are struggling to afford to feed their children; further that Coventry City Council has in recent years supported these families through provision of food vouchers over school holidays; further that due to years of real terms cuts to local government budgets, Coventry Council can no longer afford to continue this provision of food vouchers over the school holidays; further that due to years of real term cuts to local government budgets, Coventry Council can no longer afford to continue this provision.
The petitioners therefore requests that the House of Commons urge the Government to provide increased support for local councils so that they can maintain services including cost-of-living support, and specifically for Coventry Council to be given adequate support to continue their provision of food vouchers to families in need over the school holidays including Christmas.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002892]

Transport Infrastructure: Cullompton

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mike Wood.)

Richard Foord: It is a pleasure to have secured the final debate of 2023. I understand that I have until about half past seven, but given that I am the only thing standing between the Minister and sherry, mince pies and wrapping gifts by the fire, I probably will not take the full two hours and 20 minutes.
I have a request of the Minister this afternoon. I am asking this Government to deliver the people of Cullompton a gift that everyone there has been asking for for years: the Cullompton relief road and the railway station. Cullompton is a rural market town nestled in the Culm valley. There has been a town there since Roman times—if you go out and knock on doors in the area, people will tell you that they have been waiting that long for the relief road and the railway station. The layout of the town would be familiar to anyone who has visited a small west country town: it has one major road, straddled by shops and houses. The town centre is very much the beating heart of the community. It has a regular farmers market that takes place once a month, every second Saturday. The economy of the town is built on a past involving wool, cloth and leather working, but in recent years it is very much a commuter community, with people making journeys to Exeter in particular.

Simon Jupp: Earlier this year, I distributed a survey across Cullompton to ask residents about their transport priorities. The responses made it crystal clear that a railway station was much needed, alongside a relief road and M5 junction upgrades. Residents tell me on the doorstep that new housing must come with infrastructure first, and they are right. While in the Department for Transport, I worked with the community and Conservative county councillor John Berry to secure a new railway station, after meetings with the Chancellor, the Transport Secretary and the Rail Minister. Local residents in Cullompton have waited long enough. It is time for decisive action, not just warm words. Does the hon. Member need a hand to get a relief road, too?

Richard Foord: My neighbour, the hon. Member for Exmouth, is quite right that people in Cullompton are calling for this, but they have had enough of surveys. They have been consulted until their pens have no ink left in them. In 2018, Devon County Council ran a survey on the Cullompton town centre relief road. Another survey, organised by Cullompton Community Association fields, revealed that people were torn but would give up their community fields for the sake of a relief road to stop the awful congestion in the centre of the town. Now there is to be a further consultation, on both the relief road and junction 28, on which progress also needs to be made; I will expand on that shortly. People in Cullompton are sick of being consulted. They want to see action, and in particular they do not want to see surveys that are simply a means of harvesting voter intention data.
Huge volumes of traffic pass through Cullompton every day. The town is home to roughly 9,000 people, but it is reckoned that 37,000 a day commute into and  out of Exeter, and many of them are from Cullompton. Traffic often becomes backed up and gridlocked, especially at busy times—early in the morning, or when children are picked up from school. I experienced that at first hand recently when driving to one of my advice surgeries in Cullompton. So bad was the congestion that I had  to turn the engine off to stop it idling and releasing pollution.
Planning permission for the relief road was granted by Mid Devon District Council in January 2021, not without cost to local amenities. I have played football with my children at the CCA fields, and I know that members of the cricket and bowling clubs would love to have better pitches or greens, but above all else they want certainty: they want to know what the future of the town will look like. What they do not want is an enormous amount of housing with no supporting infrastructure. The Minister and other Members will have heard about the appeals that have taken place, but I should point out that Cullompton is a special case. There are plans for a north-west urban extension, and also for a garden village.
As Members will know, garden villages were an initiative thought up in 2017, and the Culm garden village is set to add 5,000 new houses to the town. If that were accompanied by promises of a new GP centre, new community sports facilities, new schools, new bus links and new cricket pitches, those might offer some amelioration, but all that people in Cullompton are seeing is more houses. We cannot keep building houses without the appropriate infrastructure to support them. Our roads cannot cope with the volume of traffic that we are seeing.
Then there is question of the motorway. The M5 goes past Cullompton, and junction 28 is one of the more congested motorway junctions. In fact, it is dangerously congested. National Highways said recently that it was
“unable to support development which introduces an unacceptable risk to highway safety, which includes queuing extending onto the M5”.
“Development” is actually a euphemism for housing. What National Highways is really saying is that we cannot afford more housing in this town, because it will simply cause queues on the motorway—but the queues are not just on the motorway; they are also through the town itself. All the motorists who get snarled up in the town, idling in traffic, know that they should be looking to Westminster and Whitehall for the solutions. Cullompton Town Council itself has said that it will “actively oppose” any residential development at east Cullompton until the town centre relief road is delivered and the capacity of junction 28 is increased. That will need to include safe pedestrian crossings over the M5, the railway and the river.
It is about time that Westminster and Whitehall took a look at that, because it is something that MPs and candidates through the ages have called for. Certainly, in the Tiverton and Honiton by-election last year, the Conservative candidate and I both called for it. As Cullompton’s MP, I have raised the issue in Parliament on multiple occasions and urged Ministers to consider how the lack of a relief road is affecting people in Cullompton. In the local elections earlier this year, Cullompton went Liberal Democrat. I dare say that that was a sign of people’s protests, and an indication  that they are not prepared to put up with being overlooked on this issue by the Conservative Government here in Westminster.
We saw the welcome Network North announcements this autumn, but the opportunity to fund the relief road was passed over in rounds 1 and 2 of the levelling-up fund and, although we did not know it at the time, in round 3 as well, when Devon did not get any levelling-up funding at all. With all the furore, anyone would think that the relief road was going to be enormously expensive, but in the context of the sorts of figures that the Department for Transport is dealing with, I suggest that £35 million is not enormous, particularly as £10 million of that has already been secured by Homes England. To get best value out of that, the Government will want to match-fund against that £10 million from the housing infrastructure fund, for which there is a deadline.
It is thought that the upgrade to junction 28 would cost a further £34 million. That is a much more expensive proposition, but a lot of work has gone into it, costing £800,000 so far. That has resulted in a robust and financially sound business case. The junction 28 proposal contained 25 options, such was the diligent work that went into it, and they have been whittled down to just three. The proposal has now gone out to public consultation, with a deadline of 5 February. Members will forgive the people of Cullompton for being tired of being consulted on these matters; they just want to see action.
The case for the relief road and junction 28 is also health-related, as it relates to traffic and congestion. This is why we also need a railway station at Cullompton. There was a recent announcement of funding to reopen Cullompton station. Again, Network North was something of a re-announcement, but we were certainly glad to be part of the restoring your railway announcement in 2020. A strategic outline business case was developed last year and it will go to a full business case in 2024, with the potential opening of Cullompton railway station in 2025. I work alongside my co-chair, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), as part of the metro board looking at every stage of the development and at how Network Rail and Great Western Railway are doing, perhaps giving them a little bit of a nudge when necessary but absolutely supporting their excellent work.
A railway station at Cullompton, along with the improvements to junction 28 and a relief road, will help with air pollution. The air quality management area in Cullompton has good monitoring, but I am afraid it reveals very poor outcomes for people’s health. It is estimated that the building of the relief road and the improvements to junction 28 would result in a reduction in the levels of nitrogen dioxide in the air of between 69% and 79%. That would clearly improve people’s health locally.
There are also plans afoot for walking and cycling. I have had people working with me on cycle routes in the area. Sustrans is considering linking Tiverton and Exeter through Cullompton, and there is a local cycling and walking infrastructure plan for connecting Willand and Uffculme. Together, all these initiatives—the relief road, the railway station and the walking, cycling and wheeling routes—will make a very friendly part of Devon into an environmentally friendly one.
In closing, I give credit to Neil Parish, my predecessor, who worked on this during his time as an MP, and to local Liberal Democrat campaigners who have been  working with me on the operational details. I hope that we can think of today’s debate in the context of Christmas present. The word “present” in that context is usually associated with a gift, but I would like the Government to think of it in the context of the present tense—that is to say, I hope that we might see some action on Cullompton railway station, the relief road and junction 28 in the present and not at some unspecified point in the future. Those would be gifts for which I know that people in mid-Devon would be very grateful.

Simon Jupp: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I seek an apology, as the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) did not name my constituency correctly in response to my intervention. He referred to me as the MP for Exmouth, but my constituency also includes Sidmouth and I should be referred to as the MP for East Devon. He has done this politically in local newspapers and leaflets. I wish also to clarify that Devon was successful, to the tune of nearly £40 million, in the most recent round of levelling-up funding, just to correct the researcher or whoever wrote the hon. Gentleman’s speech. I seek an apology for my constituency being named incorrectly, and a promise from the hon. Gentleman that he will not do so again.

Nigel Evans: The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) is not indicating that he wishes to say anything further to that point of order, in which case it stands on the record.

Guy Opperman: I thank both the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Simon Jupp) for their contributions to this debate on transport infrastructure in Cullompton. It is an honour and a privilege to address this issue on behalf of the Department for Transport. I have a sense of déjà vu all over again, as I responded to yesterday’s Adjournment debate—and I will be responding to the first Adjournment debate in the new year on Monday 8 January.
As the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton eloquently said, it is important to stress that transport infrastructure matters to everybody. I assure the House that I will not be using my full two hours and three minutes either, but, much as you did, Mr Deputy Speaker, I start by wishing everybody in the Chamber, all parliamentary staff, the Department for Transport team, those working in transport over the holiday period and my private office team of Juliette, Tessa, Aleena, Beth, Laura, Jack and Tom a happy Christmas.
As the last Minister to address the House in 2023, I want to say that democracy requires work and sacrifice. Our thanks, in particular, go to His Majesty’s constabulary, who keep us safe. We wish them a happy Christmas. We remember, sadly, the loss of PC Keith Palmer, who was killed in March 2017, and we understand very clearly that these men and women keep us and democracy safe. That should not be forgotten in any way.
As a Transport Minister, it is not for me to comment on the quality of councils’ bids to the levelling-up fund and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and  Communities, but I will attempt to address the points that relate to this debate. I will try my hardest to address the widespread gentle criticism that there has not been investment in the south-west, and in Devon in particular. I will address Cullompton, but it would be remiss of me not to highlight the important work the Government are doing to improve journeys right across the south-west, and particularly in Devon.
Clearly, we remain committed to a long-term, multi-road programme of investment to improve road links to the region. By 2025, we will have completed a 3-mile upgrade between Sparkford and Ilchester. A combination of Government and local funding has enabled the delivery of £5.7 million of support for the Tiverton eastern urban extension, providing access to a site of more than 1,500 dwellings and associated employment. Additional transport infrastructure has been delivered at junction 27 of the M5 and at the A30 Honiton junction. The A361 north Devon link road scheme, which passes through the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, will also provide benefits to the area by improving connectivity to northern Devon. The £60 million provided by the Government will see full delivery of the scheme in 2024. Obviously, those projects will deliver significant benefits for the travelling public, but they will also boost the wider economy and support wider plans for growth.
The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of rail. Clearly, we have unlocked further prosperity for the region. That includes more than £50 million for the Dartmoor line, which has provided hourly services between Okehampton and Exeter since reopening in 2021. It is the first restoring your railway scheme to be delivered, and local people have enjoyed rail access to employment, education and leisure opportunities for the first time in almost 50 years.
The Secretary of State opened the new accessible station at Marsh Barton in Devon earlier this year, which came about with the help of £3.5 million of new stations funding. That is another great example of a locally led but nationally supported rail project, and one that clearly gives an economic boost to not only Devon, but the wider region. The Government have also invested more than £150 million to make the vital coastal rail link through Dawlish more resilient, helping to deliver the reliable service that communities deserve.
As part of Network North, we have made funding available for the final phase of the south-west rail resilience programme. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Network North, and Devon will receive more than £208 million through the roads resurfacing fund over the next 11 years, including an additional £6.66 million for the next two years, to combat potholes, which cause misery for drivers. For context, in this year alone that equates to a 16.6% uplift to the county council’s 2023 pothole budget.
I could go on about that in more detail, but I will move on to buses. Clearly, the £2 bus fare that the Government have rolled out across the country is exceptionally popular, and the bus fare cap has been extended until the end of December 2024. The national bus strategy asked that all English local transport authorities outside London publish a bus service improvement plan, setting out local visions for the future of bus services, driven by what passengers and would-be passengers want. That is backed by more than £1 billion of funding and the investment can be used to support and protect existing bus services that  would otherwise be at risk. To support Devon County Council, we have allocated £17.4 million to deliver its BSIP, which will support service improvements such as increased frequency between Cullompton and Tiverton Parkway, a new service from Cullompton to Honiton railway station, and improvements to services 4 and 380.
In addition, we have provided support for active travel, with investment for drivers and public transport users being assisted by local cycling and walking infrastructure plans—LCWIPs. They allow local authorities to take a long-term approach when developing cycling and walking networks, helping to identify improvements that can be made over a 10-year period. Devon County Council is developing its Cullompton and Tiverton LCWIP. Obviously, we await the plan for consideration. That joint project with Mid Devon District Council focuses on a core area of Cullompton and considers strategic links south to Killerton and north-west to Willand, Tiverton Parkway and Tiverton. As I understand it, a consultation will be held shortly to seek the community’s views on the proposed plans. Identifying improvements through an LCWIP will support Devon County Council to include Cullompton within its pipeline of schemes for future funding rounds and to build on the £7 million-worth of funding the council has been awarded in recent years to both develop active travel and promote its use.
On multi-modal projects, for transport infrastructure to make a real difference to people who choose to live, work and do business in the south-west, we cannot operate in silos. We therefore take a holistic approach to connectivity. Clearly, my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon will be aware of the £15.7 million Destination Exmouth levelling-up scheme that delivers benefits for drivers, cyclists, pedestrians and public transport users alike. The West Devon transport hub has also received funding from a levelling-up fund scheme.
The hon. Gentleman raised specific matters relating to Cullompton. I accept entirely that the town has grown. I know the area well, as I represented individuals in a case at Taunton Crown court back in the distant dark ages before the turn of the century and spent some time there. I accept entirely that it has grown considerably and that there are plans to grow it more. It has developed into a commuter town, particularly to Exeter, and with its close proximity to the M5, I accept that there is high dependency on travel by car. However, it is also connected to Exeter by a bus service every 20 minutes, the frequency of which, I understand, will be increased to every 15 minutes in 2024.
The Government have a history of investing in  the area. When the hon. Gentleman’s predecessor,  who he rightly lauded as a strong constituency MP, was championing Tiverton and Honiton, a £1.8 million funding  package between 2013 and 2016 delivered improvements to junction 28 of the M5, which included widening and signal upgrading. I am also aware that a project is being undertaken by Devon County Council to enhance the look and feel of the heritage town centre, including some minor transport-related improvements, which is on track to be completed in 2024.
The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of the Cullompton relief road. With respect, it is not for the Government to do the job of the local council in the making of such an application. The Government are not the local planning authority in respect of any particular garden village. The council needs to make the case and plan the infrastructure. I cannot comment on the nature of the levelling-up bid or its ongoing progress, but clearly there is work being done on junction 28. Some £900,000 has been secured from Homes England to support the development of a strategic outline business case.
Although I am not the Rail Minister, I will address the issue of rail, which the hon. Gentleman raised. As I understand it, the railway station closed in 1964 and the town will be potentially seven times the size it was then in the next couple of decades. Through Network North—the Government’s decision to cancel parts of the HS2 project and redistribute funds across the country—I was delighted that £5 million was secured to reopen the station. Fast trains to London and Exeter will unlock great opportunities for the community, and I look forward to seeing the station in operation as early as 2025.
The hon. Gentleman made many other points. With respect, I cannot answer for the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, but he seeks support for various other matters. I would only make the point that it is for him and his local council to make the case for the infrastructure that he seeks and to put that in an appropriate form, so that any funding can follow. I am not aware that he sought any specific meetings with my predecessor, but I am happy to take away the points he raised today.
It is right and proper that the hon. Gentleman raises issues that matter to his local community on its behalf. I reassure the House that the Government are continuing to provide record levels of investment for road, rail, buses and active travel projects. It is our mission to level up transport infrastructure and to unlock further growth for all corners of the UK, and I thank him for bringing this matter to the House.

Nigel Evans: For the last time in 2023, I will put the Question.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.